1 


THE 

GROWTH   OF  ENGLISH 


AN  ELEMENTARY  ACCOUNT  OF  THE 

PRESENT    FORM     OF    OUR    LANGUAGE, 

AND  ITS  DEVELOPMENT 


BY  HENRY  CECIL  WYLD 

BAINES    PROFESSOR    OF   ENGLISH    LANGUAGE   AND   I'HILOLOGY    IN   THE 

UNIVERSITY   OF    LIVERPOOL 

AUTHOR    OF     'the     HISTORICAL     STUDY     OF     THE     MOTHER     TONGUE,"     ETC. 


NEW  YORK 
E.  P.  DUTTON  AND  COMPANY 

1907 


m^i^ 


Printed  in  Great  Britain 


vJS 


PREFACE 


This  book  is  obviously  a  book  for  beginners.  It 
may  serve  for  Secondary  Schools,  should  some  of 
these  institutions  find  it  convenient  to  include  such 
a  study  of  the  native  language  as  is  here  proposed 
in  their  curriculum ;  but  the  work  is  primarily 
intended  for  Training  Colleges.  Those  who  are 
preparing  intending  teachers  for  their  profession  will 
find  that  a  very  large  part,  at  least,  of  the  Board  of 
Education  Regulations  for  the  study  of  the  English 
Language  is  here  covered. 

My  experience  leads  me  to  believe  that  it  is  hardly 
possible  to  state  things  too  simply  or  too  plainly  in  a 
work  designed  for  beginners,  and  I  think  that  the 
following  short  account  of  the  elements  of  phonetics, 
and  of  English  pronunciation  in  particular,  will  be 
found  an  intelligible  and  useful  starting-point  for 
those  who  approach  these  subjects  for  the  first  time. 
If  beginners  will  take  the  trouble  to  master  thoroughly 
Chapters  I.  to  IV.,  they  will  find  it  easy  to  grasp  a 
much  more  advanced  treatment  of  the  subject.     My 


19289? 


vi  PREFACE 

own  opinion  is  that  this  elementary  phonetic  training 
ought  to  begin  at  the  age  of  ten  or  twenty,  and  I  have 
tried  to  make  the  opening  chapters  suitable  to 
children,  as  well  as  useful  for  students  of  the  ordinary 
Training  College  age. 

After  much  consideration,  I  resolved  to  try  the 
experiment  of  using  the  ordinary  English  spelling 
throughout  the  book,  instead  of  adopting  an  exact 
phonetic  notation.  The  latter  course  would  have 
been,  in  some  respects,  more  convenient,  but  the 
essential  point  is  to  teach  people  to  think  clearly 
about  speech  sounds,  and  to  use  a  terminology 
sufficiently  exact  to  express  those  phonetic  facts 
which  are  within  their  knowledge. 

A  few  words  are  necessary  as  to  the  general  scope 
and  plan  of  the  book.  The  fundamental  point  from 
which  I  start  is  that  the  beginner's  attention  must 
be  directed  to  the  familiar  facts  of  his  own  speech,  and 
that  he  must  learn  to  observe  these  accurately.  I 
have  therefore  selected  in  a  systematic  manner 
certain  phenomena  of  English  speech  which  come 
within  every  one's  experience,  and  while  directing 
attention  to  them,  have  used  them  to  interpret  and 
express  some  of  the  most  fundamental  facts  in  the 
life  of  language.  When  the  beginner  has  learnt  to 
observe  dialectal  variation  all  round  him,  when  he 
has  become  aware  that  his  own  speech,  and  that  of 


PREFACE  vii 

his  associates,  is  in  process  of  transformation,  he  can 
understand  that  a  language  which  has  a  Future  must 
also  have  had  a  Past — he  has  seen  and  realized  those 
forces  actually  at  work  which  shape  what  we  call 
the  History  of  Language. 

In  deahng  specifically  with  the  History  of  English, 
I  have  tried  to  relate  it  in  a  vital  way  to  the  facts 
and  phenomena  of  Present-day  English,  and,  further, 
to  indicate  broad  principles  rather  than  merely 
isolated  facts  which  are  the  partial  expression  of 
these  principles. 

It  is  my  earnest  hope  that  those  chapters  especially 
which  deal  with  the  varieties  in  modern  English 
speech  may  not  only  prove  interesting  to  students, 
but  may  suggest  to  their  teachers  further  develop- 
ments of  what  I  can  but  believe  are  fertile  and  really 
educative  lines  of  instruction.  To  many  lecturers  in 
Training  Colleges  the  methods  here  suggested  will 
doubtless  be  novel,  but  if  they  will  give  them  an 
honest  trial,  they  will  find  that  to  deal  in  this  way 
with  living  and  familiar  realities  will  not  only  excite 
the  interest  of  their  pupils,  but  will  also  develop  in 
these  the  faculties  of  observation  and  intelligence. 
I  would  venture  to  suggest  to  those  Training  College 
lecturers  who  use  the  book  that  the  first  seven 
chapters  might  form  the  basis  of  a  First  Year's 
Course,  to    be   amplified   and    illustrated   from    the 


viii  PREFACE 

experience  of  the  teacher,  with  the  co-operation 
of  the  pupil's  own  efforts.  If  properly  treated,  the 
ground  here  covered  will  form  an  excellent  prepara- 
tion to  the  elementary  historical  study  contained  in 
the  remaining  chapters,  which  might  with  propriety 
be  left  to  the  Second  Year.  If  the  historical  part  of 
the  course  be  accompanied  by  the  study  of  a  portion 
of  Chaucer,  as  suggested  in  my  pamphlet,  The 
Place  of  the  Mother  Tongue  in  National  Education ^ 
the  whole  subject  will  be  illuminated  by  actual 
experience,  at  first  hand,  of  an  earlier  form  of 
English. 

HENRY  CECIL  WYLD. 

The  University, 

Liverpool, 
June,  1907. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.    WHAT    IS    LANGUAGE?     -  -  -  -  i 

II.    THE    SOUNDS    OF    LANGUAGE        -  -  -  II 

III.    THE    SOUNDS    OF    ENGLISH  -  -  -         28 

IV.    VARIOUS    FORMS    OF    ENGLISH — I.    PRONUNCIA- 
TION -  -  -  -         41 

V.    VARIOUS     FORMS     OF     ENGLISH 2.     GRAMMAR, 

PHRASEOLOGY,    AND    VOCABULARY       -  "         5^ 

VI.    SOUND   CHANGES  OBSERVABLE   IN   PRESENT-DAY 

ENGLISH  -  -  -  -  -  70 
VII.    SPEAKING    AND    WRITING               -                  -                  -         84 
VIII.    WHAT    IS    MEANT    BY    THE    HISTORY    OF   A    LAN- 
GUAGE  LANDMARKS     IN     THE     HISTORY     OF 

ENGLISH  -  -  -  -  -         98 

IX.    ENGLISH    SOUND    CHANGES    OF    THE    PAST  -       127 

X.    ENGLISH    SPELLING  -  -  .  .       j^q 

XI.    THE   DEVELOPMENT   OF   THE   ENGLISH    VOCABU- 
LARY— LOAN   WORDS  -  -  "       151 
XII.    ENGLISH    INFLEXIONS    -                 -                 -  "173 
XIII.   THE    PLACE    OF    ENGLISH    AMONG    OTHER    LAN- 
GUAGES— CO^rCLUDING   REMARKS        -  -       1 88 


IX 


THE  GROWTH   OF  ENGLISH 


CHAPTER  I 

WHAT  IS  LANGUAGE? 

The  word  *  language '  is  used  in  English  in  several 
senses.  We  speak  of  Sign  Language  or  Gesture 
Language^  meaning  those  movements  of  the  fingers, 
the  hands,  or  the  head,  which  are  used  by  some 
savages,  or  by  the  deaf  and  dumb,  to  convey  to 
others  their  thoughts  and  wishes.  But  by  language 
we  generally  mean  those  sounds  which  we  make  in 
speaking.  If  we  call  this  kind  of  language  Speech 
there  is  no  doubt  as  to  what  we  mean.  This  is  the 
kind  of  language  with  which  we  are  now  going  to 
deal.  We  all  of  us  use  it  constantly,  and  could  not 
carry  on  our  lives  without  it.  It  is  by  means  of 
language  or  speech  that  we  let  other  people  know 
what  we  are  thinking,  what  we  want,  what  we  like 
and  dislike.  Some  unfortunate  persons  are  unable  to 
speak.  We  speak  of  these  people  as  being  '  deaf  and 
dumb.'  This  usually  means  that  they  are  deaf,  quite 
deaf,  either  from  their  birth  or  from  a  very  early  age. 
It  is  because  they  are  unable  to  hear  that  these 
people  are  dumb,  or  unable  to  speak ;  for  we  learn  to 

I 


2  WHAT  IS  LANGUAGE? 

speak,  as  very  small  children,  by  hearing  others  do 
so,  and  imitating  them. 

Now,  to  all  ordinary  people  language,  or  the  power 
of  speech,  is  such  a  natural  thing,  and  so  familiar, 
that  they  do  not  think  very  much  about  it.  If  they 
were  asked,  '  What  is  language  ?'  most  people  would 
not  be  able  to  give  a  very  clear  answer. 

And  yet  language,  although  it  is  so  common,  is  a 
very  w^onderful  and  precious  thing,  one  which  is  well 
worth  thinking  about.  We  therefore  surely  ought  to 
be  able  to  say  exactly  w^hat  language  is,  seeing  how 
familiar  it  is  to  all  of  us,  and  what  an  important  and 
necessary  thing  it  is  in  our  lives.  Let  us  try  and 
understand  exactly  what  language  is. 

We  have  said  that  we  can  express  our  thought  by 
gestures  or  signs.  Most  people  use  some  gestures 
while  they  are  speaking,  but  in  many  cases  it  would 
be  hard  to  say  what  exactly  is  the  meaning  of  these 
gestures.  But  in  England,  at  any  rate,  everybody 
understands,  even  if  nothing  is  said,  that  when  a  man 
nods  his  head  he  means  '  yes  '  and  that  when  he 
shakes  it  from  side  to  side  he  means  *  no.'  In  fact, 
these  two  gestures  are  just  as  full  of  meaning  as  the 
two  words  just  mentioned.  We  see,  then,  that 
gestures  of  this  kind  serve  the  same  purpose  as 
ordinary  language  or  speech — that  is,  they  express 
our  meaning.  In  fact,  deaf  people  and  many  savage 
races  can  carry  on  long  '  conversations  ' — that  is,  can 
ask  questions  and  answer  them,  can  express  their 
meaning — by  means  of  signs  and  gestures  alone,  and 
without  any  spoken  words. 

Language,  then,  whether  it  consist  of  gestures  or 
of  what  we  call  '  speech,'  is  a  means  for  letting  others 


HOW  SPEECH   SOUNDS  ARE  MADE  3 

know  what  is  in  our  minds,  what  we  are  thinking  of, 
or  feehng,  or  what  we  desire. 

We  want  just  now  to  consider  more  especially 
what  that  way  of  expressing  our  thoughts  is  that  we 
call  '  speech,'  or  '  language,'  in  the  usual  sense  of  the 
word.  Now,  speech  is  heard,  and  therefore  consists 
of  sounds.  When  we  speak  we  make  certain  sounds 
which  for  ourselves  and  our  friends  have  a  meaning. 

How  are  these  sounds  produced  ?  If  we  watch  a 
person  who  is  speaking,  or  look  at  ourselves  in  the 
looking-glass  while  we  are  speaking,  we  can  see  that 
the  lips  m.ove  to  a  certain  extent,  and  also  that  the 
mouth  is  sometimes  more  or  less  open,  sometimes 
almost  or  entirely  closed.  We  cannot  see,  however, 
what  is  going  on  inside  the  mouth,  still  less  what  is 
going  on  lower  down  in  the  throat. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  three  very  important  actions 
besides  the  movements  of  the  lips  and  jaws  are 
carried  out  in  the  act  of  speech.  First,  in  the 
mouth,  the  Tongue  is  moving  rapidly  from  one  posi- 
tion to  another ;  secondly,  in  the  throat,  two  small 
membranes  called  the  Vocal  Chords  are  alternately 
made  tight,  and  are  loosened  ;  thirdly,  the  air  which 
is  breathed  into  the  lungs  is  being  expelled,  passing 
through  the  throat  and  mouth. 

The  sounds  which  we  make  in  speaking  are  due  to 
these  movements  of  the  vocal  organs.  We  can 
therefore  define  speech  as  the  expression  of  thought 
or  feeling  by  means  of  sounds  produced  by  the  vocal 
organs.  It  is  well  to  add  that  these  sounds  are 
deliberately  and  intentionally  uttered  for  this  purpose, 
because  there  are  other  vocal  sounds  or  cries  which 
may  be  uttered  unintentionally  by  the  vocal  organs, 


4  WHAT   IS  LANGUAGE? 

under  the  influence  of  certain  strong  emotions  such 
as  joy,  fear,  anger,  and  so  on.  The  emotional  cries 
are  mechanical  and  instinctive,  and  are  not  included 
under  the  term  'language.'  Now,  from  what  has  been 
said,  we  see  that  there  are  two  sides  to  language: 
what  we  may  call  the  inner  side,  which  is  the 
meaning  which  we  wish  to  express,  and  the  external 
side,  which  consists  of  the  speech  sounds  whereby  we 
express  that  meaning. 

We  cannot  tell  what  is  passing  in  the  mind  of 
another  by  looking  directly  into  that  mind,  nor  can 
others  know  what  is  in  our  own  minds,  except  by 
means  of  some  symbol,  whether  a  picture,  a-^statue, 
a  gesture  or  a  sign,  or,  as  in  the  case  of  spoken 
language,  by  means  of  certain  sounds,  which  are 
the  outward  symbols  of  what  is  inward,  and  of  the 
mind.  A  symbol  stands  for  something  else,  and 
those  who  are  familiar  with  the  symbol  and  the 
particular  way  of  using  it  recognize  and  understand 
it.  Some  symbols,  such  as  pictures  or  statues,  have 
a  meaning  for  everybody :  there  is  no  need  to  make 
a  special  study  of  them  before  we  can  understand 
them.  Thus,  a  picture  of  a  horse  or  a  tree  will  at 
once  convev  to  anyone  who  has  ever  seen  these 
objects  the  idea  of  '  horse '  or  '  tree.'  But  those 
sj^mbols  which  are  the  sounds  made  by  the  organs  of 
speech  do  not  possess  the  same  general  significance. 
Therefore,  until  we  have  learnt  a  language,  and  have 
found  out  the  meanings  which  the  speakers  attach 
to  each  particular  sound,  or  collection  of  sounds — 
that  is,  words — we  do  not  understand  it ;  it  conveys 
no  meaning  to  us.  For  there  is  no  absolute  reason 
why  the  group  of  sounds  which  go  to  make  up  such 


SOUNDS  STAND  FOR  IDEAS  5 

a  word  as  '  horse  '  should  necessarily  convey  the  idea 
of  a  particular  species  of  four-footed  animal.  Every 
Englishman  at  the  present  day,  however,  attaches 
practically  the  same  meaning  to  the  word ;  whenever 
he  hears  it  he  takes  it  for  granted  that  the  speaker 
refers  to  the  same  thing  as  that  with  which  the  sounds 
are  associated  in  his  own  mind,  and  he  knows  that 
when  he  uses  the  word  it  will  call  up  in  the  minds 
of  his  hearers  the  same  picture  which  exists  in  his 
own. 

To  learn  a  language,  therefore,  means  to  learn  a 
particular  set  of  sounds,  and  groups  of  sounds,  and 
to  learn  also  what  are  the  ideas,  thoughts,  and  feel- 
ings for  which  they  stand,  of  which  they  are  the 
(Symbols,  in  the  minds  of  the  native  speakers  of  the 
language. 

We  learn  our  own  language  very  gradually,  by 
hearing  our  parents,  nurses,  and  teachers,  repeat  a 
w^ord  a  great  many  times,  and  seeing  them  point  to 
the  thing  or  person  for  which  the  word  stands.  In 
this  way  we  learn  first  the  names  of  the  most  familiar 
concrete  objects,  and  much  later  we  gradually  form 
some  conception  of  abstract  ideas,  and  learn  their 
names.  Mother,  Father,  Dog,  Tree,  Grass,  Flower,  and 
so  on,  are  easily  understood  by  the  child,  but  it  takes 
him  much  longer  before  he  grasps  the  meaning  of 
Hope,  Truth,  Evil,  and  so  on. 

It  is  of  the  highest  importance,  if  we  wish  to 
understand  the  real  nature  of  language,  to  realize 
fully  that  words  consist  of  sounds,  which  are  uttered 
and  heard,  and  not  of  letters,  which  are  looked  at. 

Owing  to  the  large  part  which  books  play  in 
education,  people  have  come  to  hold  strange  views 


6  WHAT  IS  LANGUAGE? 

concerning  language,  and  some  actually  think  that 
the  letters,  which  make  up  the  written  word  on  paper, 
are  the  real  language,  and  that  the  sounds,  which  we 
can  hear,  are  only  of  minor  importance.  It  is 
probable  that  we  should  find  it  easier  to  grasp  the 
real  external  facts  of  language,  which  are  its  sounds, 
if  we  knew  nothing  about  writing  and  spelling  at  all, 
and  could  only  think  of  language  as  being  uttered 
sounds.  A  little  consideration  of  the  question  shows 
us  that  the  letters  are  very  unimportant  compared 
with  the  sounds,  and  that  when  we  study  a  language, 
it  is  the  sounds  and  their  meanings  which  must 
mainly  concern  us. 

Let  us  think  for  a  moment  of  the  relation  of  the 
written  word  to  actual  speech. 

Language,  of  course,  existed  and  was  handed  on  for 
ages  before  writing  was  invented,  and  there  are 
plenty  of  races  at  the  present  day  who  have  fully 
developed  languages  in  which  they  can  express 
everything  that  is  in  their  mind,  but  who  have  no 
system  of  writing.  Even  in  England  and  other 
highly  civilized  countries  there  are  still  old  people 
who  never  learned  in  their  youth  either  to  read  or  to 
write.  For  such  people  as  these  it  is  clear  that 
language  only  exists  as  something  which  is  spoken. 
We  see,  then,  that  the  life  of  language  may  be  quite 
independent  of  writing  and  spelling. 

What  is  writing  ?  It  is  simply  a  clever  and  con- 
venient device  by  which  certain  symbols,  which  we 
call  letters,  are  used  to  represent  the  sounds  of  speech. 
Words  are  built  up  of  a  collection  of  several  sounds, 
and  so  w  hen  we  write  we  are  supposed  to  use  a  letter 
for   each   sound   of   which   the   word   is   composed. 


LETTERS  ARE  OF  SECONDARY  IMPORTANCE  7 

Letters  in  themselves  are  not  language,  but  merely 
symbols  which  are  used  for  the  sounds  of  which 
language  is  composed.  There  is  no  life  or  meaning 
in  written  symbols  by  themselves ;  but  they  must  be 
translated,  as  it  were,  into  the  sounds  for  which  they 
stand  before  they  become  language  or  have  any 
meaning.  We  become  so  accustomed  to  the  look 
of  letters,  in  groups  to  represent  words,  that  we 
learn  to  read  them  off  quite  rapidly  into  the  sounds 
for  which  they  stand.  Even  when  we  read  silently, 
without  pronouncing  the  words  aloud,  we  carry  out 
the  process  mentally,  and  often  unconsciously,  of 
turning  the  letters  into  the  sounds  which  each 
represents,  and  in  this  way  we  get  at  the  meaning  of 
what  is  written. 

We  have  already  said  that  the  sounds  of  speech 
themselves  are  only  the  symbols  of  thoughts,  not  the 
thoughts  themselves.  Written  words,  however,  are 
still  further  away  from  the  thoughts  and  ideas  than 
spoken  ones,  for  they  are  only  the  symbols  of  these 
— that  is  to  say,  they  are  symbols  of  symbols. 

Spoken  language,  then,  comes  first,  and  is  the 
reality  of  speech ;  written  words  are  a  late  invention, 
and  have  no  life  beyond  that  which  the  reader  puts 
into  them,  when  he  pronounces  the  sounds  for  which 
they  were  written. 

You  sometimes  hear  it  said  that  we  ought  to 
pronounce  in  such  and  such  a  way,  because  the  word 
is  so  written.  But  this  is  putting  the  cart  before  the 
horse.  It  would  be  more  correct  to  say  that  when 
words  were  first  written,  they  were  written  in  such 
and  such  a  way,  in  the  attempt  to  put  down  as 
accurately   as    possible,    by   means    of    the   written 


8  WHAT  IS  LANGUAGE? 

symbols,  the  sounds  which  occurred  in  living  pro- 
nunciation. You  may  ask,  '  What,  then,  does  decide 
how  a  word  is  pronounced  ?' 

It  will  be  easier  to  explain  this  later  on,  when 
we  have  said  something  about  what  is  called  the 
history  of  language  ;  but  in  the  meantime  it  will 
perhaps  be  clear  if  we  say  that  the  pronunciation  of 
a  language  changes  slightly  from  age  to  age,  and 
that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  a  word  is  pronounced  in  a 
certain  way  at  a  certain  time  by  a  given  set  of  people. 
Why  it  is  that  the  word  is  pronounced  just  in  this 
particular  way  at  a  given  time,  must  be  explained 
later  on,  but  we  may  be  sure  of  this,  that  as  a  rule 
the  spelling  has  absolutely  nothing  to  do  with  the 
pronunciation.  This  is  due  to  quite  other  causes. 
We  do  not  pronounce  as  we  do  because  of  the  spelling. 
We  shall  soon  see  that  in  English  at  any  rate  the 
spelling  which  we  learn  as  correct  appears  to  be 
but  very  slightly  connected  with  our  usual  pro- 
nunciation of  the  words.  Indeed,  if  we  were  to  try 
to  carry  out  the  rule  of  pronouncing  as  we  spell,  we 
should  produce  a  very  strange  language,  which  no 
one  would  understand. 

We  must  banish  from  our  minds  any  idea  that 
pronunciation  follows  spelling ;  this  is  a  very  wrong 
and  silly  idea,  and  if  w^e  hold  it,  w^e  shall  have  a  very 
false  impression  of  what  language  really  is.  Through- 
out this  book,  unless  otherwise  stated,  when  we  speak 
of  Language,  or  the  English  Lajiguage,  we  mean  real, 
spoken  language  which  can  be  heard,  and  not 
language  written  on  paper,  which  is  only  a  makeshift 
for  the  real  thing. 

We  need  think  very  little  about  spelling,  but  very 


SUMMARY  9 

much  about  speech  sounds,  if  we  want  to  understand 
the  many  interesting  things  which  there  are  to  learn 
about  language.  When  a  word  is  referred  to,  you 
must  think  of  the  sound  of  the  w^ord,  not  of  the 
look  of  the  word  when  written. 

You  will  perhaps  find  that  you  really  know  very 
little  about  the  sounds  of  the  words  in  your  own 
pronunciation ;  but  this  is  just  what  is  important  for 
you  to  think  about.  And  you  will  probably  find, 
also,  that  the  less  you  think,  or  perhaps,  even,  the 
less  you  know,  about  the  spelling  of  a  word,  the 
easier  it  will  be  for  you  to  discover  what  sounds  you 
really  pronounce  in  it.  Many  people,  who  think 
only  of  the  spelling,  believe  that  they  pronounce  an  T 
in  the  word  -  colonfl,'  or  in  the  word  '  alms,'  but  you 
would  find  that  a  person  who  had  not  learnt  English 
spelling  carefully  would  never  think  of  writing  an 
'I'  in  these  words  if  he  came  to  write  them  for  the 
first  time,  without  ever  having  seen  them  spelt.  A 
very  important  lesson,  which  most  people  have  to 
learn,  is  to  keep  their  ears  open,  and  listen  carefully 
to  the  language  which  they  hear  around  them,  and 
which  they  speak  themselves. 

In  this  chapter  we  have  tried  to  make  clear  the 
following  points  :  (i)  Language,  or  speech,  is  a  means 
of  letting  others  know  what  we  are  thinking,  or 
feeling;  (2)  language  consists  of  sounds  which  for 
ourselves,  and  others,  have  a  meaning  ;  (3)  the  sounds 
of  speech  are  made  by  the  movements  of  certain 
organs  in  the  throat -and  mouth,  known  as  the  organs 
of  speech  ;  (4)  in  speech,  these  sounds  are  deliberately 
and  intentionally  uttered,  and  are  not  mere  cries; 
(5)  these  sounds  are  the  outward  symbols  of  what  is 


lo  WHAT  IS  LANGUAGE? 

in  the  mind ;  (6)  written  letters  are  a  further  system 
of  symbols,  which  represent  the  sounds  of  speech, 
and  are  thus  the  symbols  of  symbols ;  (7)  pronuncia- 
tion does  not  follow  spelling,  but  is  independent  of 
it,  and  it  often  happens  in  English  that  the  spelling 
is  not  a  correct  symbol  of  the  pronunciation,  as  it 
now^  exists ;  (8)  it  follows  from  all  this  that  in  study- 
ing a  language  what  we  want  to  get  at  is  not  the 
written,  but  the  spoken  forms  of  it. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  SOUNDS  OF  LANGUAGE 

Every  one  will  agree  nowadays  that  if  we  wish  to 
know  something  about  birds  and  animals  and 
flowers ;  if  we  want  to  realize  the  way  in  which  they 
live  and  grow,  we  must  learn  these  lessons  by 
observing  the  living  things — the  birds  and  beasts,  as 
they  go  about  their  business,  of  finding  food,  or 
making  their  nests ;  the  plants  as  they  unfold  in 
wood  or  hedgerow.  This  personal  observation  will 
teach  us  much  more  of  the  essential  facts,  and  in  a 
more  vital  and  interesting  way,  than  we  can  gather 
merely  from  books  and  lectures. 

In  precisely  the  same  way,  the  fundamental  facts 
about  our  own  language,  those  facts  which  we  must 
know  before  we  go  on  to  more  advanced  and 
difficult  studies  in  English,  must  be  learnt  by 
personal  observation  of  our  own  speech. 

Only,  whereas  in  the  case  of  Natural  History  it  is 
necessary  to  cultivate  the  power  of  seeing  accurately, 
when  we  come  to  study  language,  as  it  ought  to  be 
studied,  we  must  cultivate  our  sense  of  hearing. 
We  must,  as  we  have  already  said,  learn  to  hear 
with  precision. 

Now,  many  people,  perhaps,  will  be  surprised  to 
be  told  that  however  much  we  may  think  that  other 

II 


12  THE  SOUNDS  OF  LANGUAGE 

persons,  with  whom  we  constantly  associate,  speak 
exactly  as  we  do  ourselves,  yet,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
no  two  persons,  probably,  speak  absolutely  and 
precisely  alike.  The  differences  may  be  so  slight 
that  it  will  take  a  great  deal  of  careful  observation 
to  discover  them,  but  they  are  there  nevertheless. 

This  being  the  case,  each  person  must  begin  his 
observation  of  the  English  which  is  spoken  by 
noting  how  he  speaks  himself.  When  he  has  care- 
fully observed  the  facts  of  his  own  speech,  he  can 
begin  to  compare  this  with  the  speech  of  others.  I 
can  do  no  more  in  a  little  book  like  this  than  show 
you  how  you  should  begin  the  study  of  your  own 
English,  and  point  out  some  of  the  things  which  you 
should  notice  in  yourselves. 

When  a  writer  talks  about  English  he  generally 
means  that  precise  form  which  he  himself  habitually 
speaks.  He  cannot  possibly  describe  the  way  in 
which  his  readers  speak,  for  he  has  not  heard  them. 
In  many,  probably  in  most,  cases  the  reader's  speech 
will  be  found  to  agree  with  that  of  the  writer,  but  in 
some  cases  it  will  be  different.  But  the  readers  may 
learn,  from  the  way  in  which  the  writer  describes  his 
own  pronunciation  and  so  on,  how  they  should 
observe  and  describe  their  own. 

Therefore,  if  you  find  it  stated  in  this  book  that 
such  and  such  a  sound  is  pronounced  in  two  words 
which  are  given  as  illustrations,  whereas  you  pro- 
nounce not  the  same  but  different  sounds  in  the 
particular  words  given,  this  merely  proves  that  your 
way  of  speaking  is  different  in  this  particular  respect 
from  that  of  the  writer,  not  that  he  is  wrong  in  what 
he  says  about  his  own  pronunciation. 


MEANING  OF  'VOWEL'  AND  'CONSONANT'     13 

It  does  not  matter  at  all  if  you  think  that  it  is  not 
a  good  way  of  speaking  to  pronounce  the  same 
sound  in  each  of  the  words  given.  For  it  must  be 
remembered  that,  for  the  moment,  the  writer  is  not 
trying  to  teach  people  how  they  ought  to  pronounce, 
but  merely  how  some  people,  himself  among  them, 
actually  do  pronounce.  You  must  also  remember 
that  we  are  now  dealing,  not  with  letters,  but  with 
sounds. 

The  study  of  the  sounds  of  speech  is  called 
Phonetics,  and  although  you  are  not  invited,  just  at 
present,  to  make  a  deep  study  of  this  subject,  there 
are  yet  a  few  points  connected  with  the  simplest 
facts  of  Phonetics  which  you  ought  to  understand  if 
you  want  to  have  an  intelligent  knowledge  of  English 
pronunciation. 

Now,  everybody,  even  those  who,  quite  properly, 
make  no  claim  to  know  anything  about  Phonetics, 
yet  make  use  of  the  phonetic  terms  Vowel  and 
Consonant.  But  how  many  people  could  give  a  clear 
definition  of  either  term  ? 

Some  people  would  say  that  a,  e,  i,  0,  u,  were 
vowels,  and  the  other  letters  were  consonants.  But 
we  have  nothing  to  do  just  at  present  with  letters  : 
we  want  a  definition  of  two  classes  of  sounds,  a,  e,  i, 
etc.,  are  merely  the  nmnes  of  certain  symbols  which 
we  use  to  represent  certain  sounds.  An  equally 
bad  answer  is  given  by  those  who  say  that  a 
consonant  is  a  sound  which  cannot  be  pronounced  by 
itself,  and  a  vowel  is  one  that  can  be  so  pronounced. 
This  distinction  is  entirely  false,  for  with  a  little 
practice  each  and  every  consonant  which  exists  can 
be  pronounced  alone,  and  without  a  vowel  following. 


14  THE  SOUNDS  OF  LANGUAGE 

The  question  is,  What  is  the  special  character  of 
that  class  of  sounds  which  we  call  consonants^  and 
how  do  they  differ  from  the  other  class  that  we  call 
vowels  ?  The  best  way  to  decide  the  question  is 
to  pronounce  a  few  consonants,  and  then  a  few 
vowel  sounds,  and  observe  what  peculiarities  the 
former  class  possess  which  are  not  shared  by  the 
latte  . 

As  examples  of  consonants,  let  us  take  the  t  in  top, 
the  p  in  pull,  the/  in  fat,  and  the  z  in  seize.  We  can 
easily  observe  that  in  t  and  p  there  is  a  kind  of 
checking  of  the  breath  for  an  instant,  and  that  it 
then  bursts  out  with  a  slight  puff.  If  you  can 
pronounce  t  and  p  (the  sounds,  not  the  names  of  the 
letters)  by  themselves,  several  times,  you  will  soon 
notice  the  puff  of  breath  to  which  I  refer.  You  wdll 
find  that  t  and  p  are  over  in  an  instant ;  you  cannot 
audibly  continue  t  or  p,  although  you  may  repeat 
them  as  often  as  you  like. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  you  pronounce  /  or  z,  you 
find  that  you  can  continue  them  as  long  as  your 
breath  lasts.  There  is  no  sudden  puff  of  breath,  but 
the  breath  passes  all  the  time,  causing  a  slight  hiss 
or  buzz.  This  shows  us  that  there  are  two  kinds  of 
consonants — one  which  is  instantaneous,  and  which 
ends  with  a  puff  of  breath ;  the  other  which  can  be 
audibly  prolonged,  which  has  no  sudden  puff,  but 
which  has  a  hiss  or  a  buzz  going  on  all  the  time. 

The  puff  class  are  called  Stops,  because  the  breath 
is  checked  or  stopped  for  an  instant  in  pronouncing 
them  ;  the  hiss  and  buzz  class  are' called  Continuants, 
or  Open  Consonants,  because  they  can  be  continued  for 
a  long  time,  and  because  the  passage  in  the  mouth. 


VOWELS  AND  CONSONANTS  CONTRASTEr3     15 

through  which  the  breath  comes,  is  slightly  open  all 
the  time.  The  hiss  or  buzz  is  caused  by  friction 
made  by  the  air  in  coming  through  the  narrow 
passage. 

You  must  test  the  truth  of  these  statements  for 
yourselves,  by  pronouncing  the  consonants  mentioned 
a  good  many  times,  and  observing  in  each  the  points 
just  described.  When  you  have  done  this,  try  and 
find  some  other  consonants  of  each  class  for  your- 
selves. 

We  now  come  to  Vowels,  Pronounce  the  first 
vowel  in  *  father'  and  in  'boot'  several  times.  You 
will  observe  that  these  sounds  resemble  the  open  or 
buzz  consonants  in  this,  that  they  can  all  be 
prolonged  as  long  as  your  breath  lasts.  But  you 
will  notice  also  that  these  two  vowels  (in  father  and 
boot)  differ  from  the  sound  of  Zj  etc.,  in  so  far  as  the 
vowels  have  no  hiss  or  buzz  which  is  audible.  The 
reason  of  this  absence  of  friction  is,  that  in  vowels 
the  passage  through  which  the  air  comes  is  not 
sufficiently  narrow  or  closed  to  produce  it. 

We  can  say,  then,  that  the  main  difference  between 
consonants  and  vowels  is,  that  whereas  in  con- 
sonants the  breath  is  either  altogether  stopped  for 
an  instant  (in  the  pi ff  clsiss)  or  so  far  closed  that  a 
certain  amount  of  friction  is  caused,  in  vowels  the 
passage  is  not  sufficiently  closed  to  produce  friction, 
and  therefore  there  is  no  hiss  or  buzz  at  all.  In  fact, 
the  distinction  between  vowels  and  consonants  de- 
pends upon  the  degree  of  narrowing  or  closing  of  the 
passage  through  which  the  air  or  breath  has  to  pass. 
A  sound  in  which  there  is  either  audible  friction,  or  a 
complete  momentary  stoppage  of  the  air  produced  in 


i6  THE  SOUNDS  OF  LANGUAGE 

some  part  of  the  mouth,  is  a  consonant ;  sounds  in 
which  there  is  neither  stoppage  nor  friction  are 
vowels. 

Some  Facts  about  Consonants. 

It  is  very  important  to  remember  the  distinction 
between  these  two  classes  of  consonant — the  Stops 
and  the  Open  consonants.  Besides  those  already 
mentioned,  we  have  several  others  of  both  classes 
in  English.  Thus,  k  in  king,  d  in  dog,  are  Stops ;  th 
in  think,  sh  in  ship,  are  Open  consonants.  You  should 
now  try  and  find  some  more  consonants  of  each  kind 
for  yourselves. 

The  Distinction  of  Voice  and  Breath. 

If  you  pronounce  first  the  th  in  think,  and  then 
that  in  this  several  times,  you  will  notice  that  there 
is  a  difference  between  the  sounds,  although  we  write 
them  both  with  the  letters  th.  The  sound  in  this  is 
louder  than  the  other ;  also,  if  you  pronounce  it  as 
loud  as  you  can,  and  make  it  last  as  long  as  you  can, 
and  put  your  finger-tips  on  your  throat  while  doing 
so,  you  will  feel  quite  distinctly  a  slight  regular 
vibration  going  on  in  the  throat. 

This  vibration,  however,  does  not  occur  when  you 
pronounce  th  in  think.  And  yet  you  will  find,  if  you 
attend  carefully  to  the  position  of  the  tongue  when 
pronouncing  the  loud  and  the  other  th-sound,  that  in 
both  cases  the  point  or  tip  of  the  tongue  is  placed 
against  or  between  the  upper  and  lower  rows  of  teeth. 
In  fact,  the  only  difference  between  the  two  sounds 
as  regards  the  way  in  which  they  are  made  lies  in 


VOICE  AND  BREATH  17 

the  vibration  in  the  throat  in  the  case  of  th  in  thisj 
which  is  absent  in  the  other  th. 

This  vibration  is  caused  by  what  are  called  the 
vocal  chords — two  small  membranes  in  the  throat — 
being  tightened  and  drawn  across  the  inside  of  the 
throat.  When  the  vocal  chords  are  in  this  position, 
and  the  air  coming  from  the  lungs  passes  through 
the  throat,  the  chords  are  set  vibrating  by  the  air. 
The  air  has,  as  it  were,  to  burst  through  between  the 
chords.  All  sounds  pronounced  with  the  chords 
drawn  across  the  throat,  so  that  they  vibrate  when 
the  air  passes  through  them,  are  called  Voiced  sounds. 
Beside  th  in  this,  we  have  in  English  several  other 
Voiced  Open  consonants,  such  as  z  in  buzz,  v  in  veal. 
But  the  vocal  chords  may  also  be  tightened,  and  may 
vibrate  when  Stop  consonants  are  pronounced,  as  in 
d  in  dog,  h  in  big,  g  in  goat,  and  so  on. 

Try  and  find  some  other  Voiced  consonants,  both 
Stops  and  Open. 

You  will  notice  that  when  you  are  speaking  aloud 
all  vowel  sounds  are  accompanied  by  vibration  of 
the  vocal  chords.  This  does  not  occur,  however, 
when  you  whisper  a  vowel. 

We  now  pass  on  to  those  consonants  which  are 
pronounced  without  this  vibration.  Pronounce  /as 
in  fat,  s  as  in  sap,  and  you  will  find  that,  although 
you  can  both  feel  and  hear  the  air  rushing  out  with 
a  kind  of  hiss,  there  is  no  vibration  in  the  throat. 
In  these  cases  the  vocal  chords  are  not  tightened 
and  drawn  across  the  throat ;  the  air  does  not  burst 
through  between  them,  and  they  do  not  vibrate. 

The  following  pairs  of  words  have  initially  a  voiced 
or  a  voiceless  open  consonant;  the  voiced  sound  is  in 

2 


i8  THE  SOUNDS  OF  LANGUAGE 

the  first  word  of  each  pair :  zebra — sap,  veal— feel, 
this — think.  As  in  the  case  of  the  two  ^/i-sounds,  the 
only  difference  between  z  and  s,  v  and  /,  respectively, 
is  that  the  former  is  voiced,  the  latter  is  voiceless,  or, 
as  it  is  also  called,  a  breath  consonant. 

We  may  give  a  few  pairs  of  voiced  and  voiceless 
stops  :  dog — top,  big— pig,  got— cot.  As  regards  the  last 
pair,  you  will  notice  that,  although  cot  is  spelt  with  a  c, 
it  is  pronounced  with  what  we  might  call  a  *  ^-sound.' 
You  must  learn  to  recognize  the  same  sound  when 
you  hear  it,  no  matter  how  it  may  be  written. 
Remember,  once  more,  we  are  trying  to  learn  some- 
thing about  sounds,  not  about  letters. 

Now  try  and  find  words  which  contain  voiceless 
consonants,  both  open  and  stops,  and  then  try  to  find 
out  what  each  sound  would  be  like  if  pronounced 
with  voice — that  is,  with  vibration  m  the  throat. 

If  you  clearly  understand  this  account  of  voice  and 
breath  (or  voiceless)  consonants,  you  will  have  learnt 
a  very  important  lesson.  You  see  that  it  is  much 
better  to  speak  of  voiced  and  voiceless  sounds  than 
of  hard  and  soft  sounds.  The  former  terms  have  a 
clear  and  precise  meaning,  which  is  quite  easy  to 
grasp.  Many  people  speak  of  voiced  sounds  as  soft, 
and  voiceless  as  hard;  but  if  3^ou  ask  them  what  the 
difference  between  the  two  kinds  of  sounds  really  is, 
they  cannot  tell  you.  Now,  however,  you  know 
that  the  difference  consists  in  the  presence  or  absence 
of  vibration  in  the  vocal  chords,  2ind  for  the  future  you 
will  speak  of  voiced  and  voiceless  sounds. 


\ 


THE  QUESTION  'WHERE'?  19 

Consonants  formed  in  Various  Parts  of  the 
Mouth. 


You  have,  perhaps,  never  thought  how  or  where 
you  form  any  particular  sound.  And  yet  it  is  very 
easy  to  find  out  how  a  great  many  sounds,  especially 
consonants,  are  made. 

Besides  the  questions  we  have  already  discussed  of 
stops  and  open,  voiced  and  voiceless  consonants,  it  is 
necessary  to  notice  that  these  kinds  of  consonants 
may  be  formed  in  different  ways  and  in  different 
parts  of  the  mouth. 

I  shall  only  mention  a  few  points  which  it  is  very 
easy  for  each  one  to  find  out  for  himself  with  a  little 
careful  observation. 

I  begin  with  consonants  formed  with  the  lips, 
because  you  can  see  the  lips  moving,  as  well  as  feel 
their  movements.  Pronounce  h  in  big,  p  in  pig,  and 
you  can  see,  if  you  look  in  the  glass,  that  each  time 
you  say  either  b  or  p  the  lips  are  closed  for  an 
instant.  You  can  also  feel  that  you  are  closing  the 
lips ;  p  and  b,  therefore,  are  suitably  called  lip-stops. 
If  you  add  that  6  is  a  voiced  lip-stop,  and  p  a  voiceless 
lip-stop,  you  have  described  all  that  takes  place  in 
forming  these  sounds. 

Now  pronounce  /  in  feel,  and  v  in  veal.  You  can 
feel  after  a  little  thoughtful  observation  that  when 
you  pronounce  /  and  v  the  lower  lip  is  brought 
against  the  upper  teeth,  and  that  the  air  passes 
between  the  lip  and  the  teeth.  This  fact  can  be 
discovered  also  by  placing  the  finger  to  the  lips 
while  pronouncing  the  sounds,  and  by  watching  the 
movement  in  the  glass ;  /  and  v,  therefore,  are  called 

2—2 


20  THE  SOUNDS  OF  LANGUAGE 

lip-teeth  open  consonants,  the  former  voiceless^  the 
latter  voiced. 

The  next  easiest  consonants  to  observe  are  those 
formed  by  the  point  or  tip  of  the  tongue.  Pronounce 
t  in  tip  and  d  in  dip,  and  try  to  keep  the  tongue  in 
the  position  necessary  for  pronouncing  these  sounds. 
Then  put  the  tip  of  the  little  finger  (the  hand  being 
held  palm  upwards)  just  inside  the  front  teeth  of  the 
upper  row.  You  will  find  that  the  tip  of  the  tongue 
is  just  behind  the  teeth,  touching  the  tops  or  roots  of 
these.  With  a  little  practice  you  will  be  able  to  feel, 
from  the  sensations  in  the  tongue  itself,  just  where 
the  tip  is.  We  call  t  and  d,  therefore,  point -stop 
consonants,  the  former  voiceless,  the  latter  voiced. 
The  nearest  open  consonants  are  the  *  //z-sounds ' 
already  mentioned,  only  in  these  sounds  the  point  or 
tip  of  the  tongue  is  more  on  the  teeth  themselves. 
Therefore  we  may  call  the  '  //i-sounds  '  point-teeth-open 
consonants  ;  you  know  already  how  to  discover  when 
they  are  voiced  or  not. 

When  you  have  thoroughly  mastered  what  has 
been  said  about  the  lips,  and  the  point  of  the  tongue, 
and  when  you  are  able  to  be  certain  froin  the 
sensation  alone  that  you  are  using  the  point  or  the 
lips,  you  may  begin  to  experiment  with  regard  to 
other  sounds,  and  try  to  find  out  how  they  are 
formed — such  as  s  in  sap,  or  k  in  king. 

Nasal  Consonants. 

We  shall  now  consider  for  a  moment  one  other 
point  in  connexion  with  consonant  sounds,  and  that 
is  the  use  of  the  nose,  which  plays  a  part  in  three 


THE  NOSE  IN  SPEECH  21 

common  English  consonants,  11,  m,  and  ng  (as  in 
sing).  There  is  a  passage  leading  from  the  back  of 
the  throat  into  the  back  of  the  nose,  and  thence  out 
through  the  nostrils.  This  passage  is  usually  kept 
closed  by  means  of  a  curtain  or  flap  of  flesh  at  the 
back  of  the  mouth,  that  part  which  ends  in  the  uvula. 
When  this  passage  is  open,  however,  part  of  the  air 
passes  through  it  at  the  same  time  that  the  other 
part  comes  through  the  mouth,  and  out  at  the  lips. 

Sounds  uttered  with  the  nose  passage  open,  are 
called  nasal  or  nasalized  sounds. 

You  can  easily  discover  for  yourselves  that  in  is 
merely  nasal  b,  and  n  nasal  d,  but  it  might  be  more 
difficult  to  find  out  that  the  ng  in  sing  is  simply  a 
nasalized  form  of  the  ^-sound  in  goat.  If  when  you 
have  the  tongue  or  lips  in  the  necessary  position 
for  d,  g,  b  (as  in  dog,  got,  bit),  you  open  this  passage 
leading  from  the  throat  into  the  nose,  you  will  get 
respectively  n,  ng,  m;  if  you  close  the  passage  you 
get  the  ordinary  d-,  g-,  6-sounds.  The  reason  why, 
when  we  have  a  bad  cold  in  the  head,  we  say,  for 
instance,  ' pid'  instead  of  'pin'  is  that  our  nose 
passage  is  (for  the  moment)  always  closed,  and  we 
are,  therefore,  unable  to  send  any  air  through  it,  and 
therefore  cannot  pronounce  a  nasal  sound. 

Vowel  Sounds. 

Beginners  generally  find  it  very  difficult  to  realize 
those  positions  of  the  tongue  which  produce  the 
different  vowel  sounds,  and  it  is  better  to  postpone 
trying  to  do  so  until  we  are  thoroughly  familiar  with 
the    movements    and   positions    of    the    organs    of 


22  THE  SOUNDS  OF  LANGUAGE 

speech  which  produce  the  consonants.  We  shall 
therefore  merely  note  generally  here  that,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  movements  of  the  tongue  are  of 
prime  importance  in  forming  vowel  sounds,  but  shall 
not  attempt  to  describe  them  at  this  stage. 

There  is  one  point,  however,  which  every  one 
can  observe  without  any  trouble,  and  that  is,  that 
whatever  may  be  the  position  of  the  tongue,  some 
vowel  sounds  require  the  action  of  the  lips,  while 
others  do  not.  If  we  pronounce  the  vowel  in  see  or 
set,  and  then  that  in  root  or  rot,  and  look  in  the 
glass  while  doing  so,  it  will  become  evident  that  in 
the  first  two  sounds  the  lips  are  perfectly  passive 
and  inactive,  while  in  the  two  last  they  are  brought 
slightly  together. 

Notice,  when  other  persons  are  speaking,  the  move- 
ments of  the  lips  in  the  utterance  of  vowel  sounds, 
and  make  a  list,  both  from  them  and  from  your 
own  speech,  of  all  the  English  vowels  in  which  the 
lips  are  used,  and  of  those  in  which  they  are  not. 

We  call  vowels  like  that  in  root,  rounded  vowels, 
those  like  that  in  see,  unrounded. 

The  Nature  of  Diphthongs. 

A  diphthong  is  a  combination  of  two  distinct 
vowel  sounds,  only  one  of  which  has  stress  (p.  26), 
and  which  constitute  only  one  syllable.  In  English 
some  diphthongs  are  written  with  two  vowel  symbols, 
as  otc  in  lioiise ;  others  are  written  with  only  one 
letter,  as  what  is  popularly  called  'long  i,'  in  nine. 
In  English  there  are  also  sounds  which  are  not 
diphthongs  at  all,  like  the  vowel  in  cause,  which  are 


HOW  TO  STUDY  SOUNDS  23 

spelt  with  two  vowels.  When  we  speak  of  a 
diphthong,  therefore,  we  refer  to  such  a  combination 
of  sotmds  as  that  described  above,  and  do  not 
consider  the  spelling,  which  is  purely  accidental. 
For  an  account  of  the  English  diphthongs,  see 
PP-  33-36  below. 

Hints  on  the  Observation  of  Sounds. 

When  you  want  to  study  a  sound,  the  best  way  is 
to  pronounce  first  a  word  in  which  it  occurs,  and  then 
detach  it  from  the  word  and  pronounce  it  by  itself. 
Practise  this  isolating  of  sounds— many  people  find 
it  very  difficult  at  first.  Remember  that  you  want 
to  get  at  a  sound,  and  not  at  the  name  of  a  letter. 
Therefore,  if  you  wish  to  observe  the  movements  of 
the  tongue,  let  us  say  in  the  sound  of  n  in  *  name,'  do 
not  pronounce  the  name  of  the  letter  n,  which  we  call 
'en,'  because  that  contains  also  a  vowel  {e  as  in 
'men'),  but  be  careful  to  pronounce  only  the 
consonant  n  by  itself.  There  is  no  difficulty  in 
prolonging  the  sound  of  a  nasal  consonant,  of  an  open 
consonant,  or  of  any  vowel,  but  a  stop  consonant  has, 
of  course,  only  a  momentary  sound,  and  is  not  heard, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  until  the  position  of  the  vocal 
organs  has  been  abandoned. 

It  will  therefore  be  found  a  useful  practice  to,  as 
it  were,  'pronounce  mentally'  in  the  case  of  stops, 
letting  the  organs  fall  into  the  right  position,  which 
they  do  instinctively,  and  then  maintaining  the 
position,  andvtrying  to  concentrate  our  minds  upon 
the  position,  without  thinking  of  the  sound.  This 
mental  pronunciation  is  of  the  greatest  value  in  studying 


24  THE  SOUNDS  OF  LANGUAGE 

every  kind  of  sound.  The  best  process  is — first 
pronoimce  the  sound  aloud,  then  whisper  it,  and  finally 
pronounce  mentally,  concentrating  our  mind  more  and 
more  on  the  position  pure  and  simple.  It  will  be 
found  easiest  to  begin  with  open  consonants,  because, 
as  has  already  been  pointed  out,  the  sound  of  these 
can  be  prolonged. 

Sounds  in  Combination. 

Hitherto  we  have  thought  only  of  single  sounds — 
d,  b,  th,  and  so  on — but  it  must  be  remembered  that 
sounds  do  not  occur  in  ordinary  language  in  this 
way.  Speech  does  not  consist  of  isolated,  single 
sounds,  but  of  groups  or  series  of  sounds,  which 
form  syllables,  words,  sentences. 

In  any  given  language  there  are  only  a  certain 
number  of  sounds,  and  they  occur  only  in  certain 
combinations  and  in  certain  positions.  Now,  it  is 
a  curious  thing  that  a  new  combination  of  sounds 
which  in  themselves  are  perfectly  familiar  is  often 
as  difficult  to  pronounce  as  an  entirely  new  sound. 
For  instance,  we  are  all  familiar  with  the  sound  ng 
(as  in  sing)  after  a  vowel  at  the  end  or  in  the  middle 
of  a  word.  In  the  latter  position  we  also  quite 
commonly  pronounce  it  before  another  vowel,  as  in 
singing.  But  if  we  try  to  pronounce  the  sound 
which  we  express  by  ng  immediately  before  a  vowel 
initially — that  is,  with  no  other  sound  before  the 
ng — we  shall,  perhaps,  find  it  almost  impossible  to 
do  so  without  a  good  deal  of  practice.  And  yet 
there  is  nothing  new  in  the  combination,  except  the 
position  of  the  sound  in  question,  with  respect  to 
other  sounds.    Again,  we  can  all  pronounce  i  followed 


THE  '  BREATH-GROUP  '  THE  UNIT  OF  SPEECH    25 

by  s  at  the  end  of  a  word,  as  in  bits ;  but  try  and 
pronounce  the  combination  ts  initially,  as  in  the 
German  Zeit  ('time'),  and  difficulty  at  once  arises 
for  some  English  people.  It  is  a  good  preparation 
for  the  pronunciation  of  foreign  languages  to  practise 
familiar  sounds  in  unfamiliar  combinations. 


Sound  Sequences  in  Ordinary  Speech. 

It  is  popularly  believed  that  in  speaking  we 
separate  our  words  one  from  the  other  by  a  slight 
pause  after  each.  This,  however,  is  not  the  case  in 
natural,  rapid  speech.  The  pauses  which  we  make 
in  speaking  are  not  due  to  the  existence  of  any 
necessity  for  shutting  off  each  word  as  an  inde- 
pendent entity  by  itself,  but  to  quite  other  causes, 
of  which  the  commonest  is  that  the  supply  of  air 
from  the  lungs,  by  means  of  which  we  are  able  to 
speak  at  all,  becomes  exhausted,  and  we  pause  to 
take  breath.  Again,  we  may  pause  because  we  are 
at  a  loss  for  a  word,  or  because  we  wish  to  be 
particularly  emphatic. 

All  the  sounds  produced  with  one  lungful  of  air, 
no  matter  whether  they  form  one  long  word  or 
several  shorter  ones,  are  known  as  a  hreath-group. 

It  is  the  mind  which  resolves  the  breath-group 
into  words,  not  the  voice.  Unless  we  know  a 
language,  we  cannot  possibly  tell  by  merely  listen- 
ing to  it  where  one  word  leaves  off  and  another 
begins.  This  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  children  and 
foreigners  often  get  hold  of  a  wrong  form  of  a  word 
which  they  have  only  heard  in  a  sentence  surrounded 
by  other  words. 


26  THE  SOUNDS  OF  LANGUAGE 

Supposing  we  did  not  know  the  word  but  in  the 
sense  of  only,  we  should  probably  understand  the 
sentence  '  It  is  but  a  step  from  the  sublime  to  the 
ridiculous '  to  contain  the  familiar  word  btUter.  It 
is  easy  to  find  numbers  of  two-syllabled  words  in 
English  which  are  indistinguishable  in  sound  from 
other  groups  of  syllables  containing  two  words.  For 
instance,  honour,  on  her,  on  a  ;  offend  her,  a  fender  ;  not 
at  home  (quickly  pronounced),  not  a  tome ;  not  at  ally 
man  I  not  a  tall  man,  and  so  on. 

So  much  is  it  the  case  that  words  are  not  separated 
up  in  natural  speech  that  the  end  of  one  word  some- 
times gets  permanently  tacked  on  to  the  beginning 
of  the  next,  and  the  original  form  is  altogether  lost. 
Thus,  in  English  a  newt  was  originally  an  ewt.  Some- 
times a  word  loses  its  initial  sound  by  being  wrongly 
separated  out  from  among  the  words  in  a  breath- 
group.  Thus,  our  word  umpire  has  lost  its  original 
n,  which  it  had  in  the  French  word  nonpair.  Here, 
a  mimpire  being  quite  indistinguishable  in  pronuncia- 
tion from  an  umpire,  the  word,  when  used  apart  from 
the  artidef^^as  taken  to  be  that  form  v/hich  we  use. 

Stress. — This  is  the  name  given  to  what  is  more 
popularly  known  as  Emphasis,  or  simply  as  Accent, 
By  stress  is  meant  the  degree  of  force,  and  therefore 
of  loudness,  with  which  a  sound  is  uttered.  In  such 
a  word  as  pity  the  first  syllable  has  the  strong  stress, 
the  second  being  much  weaker,  and,  by  contrast, 
called  unstressed.  In  deceive  conditions  are  reversed, 
and  the  second  syllable  has  the  chief  stress. 

This  alternating  of  strong  and  weak  or  weak  and 
strong  stress  occurs  in  breath-groups  as  well  as  in 
separate  words.     Thus,  in  *  He  came,  he  saw,  he  con- 


ACCENT  27 

quered,'  uttered  as  a  sentence,  we  find  the  following 
order  of  stressing :  weak,  strong,  weak  strong,  weak, 
strong,  weak.  '  He  came,  he  saw,'  have  each  exactly 
the  same  order,  the  same  system  of  stressing,  as  the 
word  deceive.  Stress  is  very  important  in  language, 
not  only  because  it  serves  to  define  meaning,  but 
also  because,  as  we  shall  see  later  on,  a  sound  is 
often  different  according  to  whether  it  is  strongly 
stressed  or  not. 

Intonation. — This  is  the  name  given  to  the  pitch 
or  note  on  which  a  sound  is  uttered.  Stress  and 
intonation  are  both  classed  by  students  of  language 
under  the  general  heading  'Accent.'  In  ordinary 
popular  English  speech,  however.  Accent  generally 
means  Stress,  because  in  English  Stress  is  the  most 
prominent  kind  of  Accent-  Other  languages,  such 
as  French,  replace,  for  the  most  part,  differences  of 
Stress  by  differences  of  Intonation,  to  express 
emphasis  ;  while  others,  such  as  Swedish,  make 
copious  use  of  both  forms  of  Accent.  Intonation 
may  be  falling  or  rising.  Falling  intonation  is  heard 
in  '  He  was  a  good  boy,'  where  the  last  word  is  pro- 
nounced on  a  lower  tone  than  the  rest  of  the 
sentence  to  express  the  simple  undisputed  fact. 
Rising  intonation  is  used  in  the  question  'Are  you 
coming  home  to-day  ?'  where  the  last  syllable  is  higher 
than  the  rest.  Rising  intonation  is  usually  neces- 
sary in  English  to  express  interrogation,  unless  some 
interrogatory  word  be  used,  such  as  which  or  whOy 
where  it  is  unnecessary,  as  in  '  Who  was  there  ?' 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  SOUNDS  OF  ENGLISH 

The  first  thing  which  must  be  observed  in  studying 
a  language  is  its  pronunciation.  We  therefore  begin 
our  survey  of  our  own  language  by  enumerating  the 
sounds  now  in  use  in  educated  polite  speech. 

In  the  following  list  the  ordinary  symbols  are  used 
for  each  sound,  and  in  order  that  there  may  be  no 
mistake  as  to  which  sound  is  intended,  several  words 
are  given  to  illustrate  the  sound  under  discussion. 
The  letter,  or  letters,  which  in  each  case  express  the 
sound  are  in  italics. 

To  prevent  error  I  have  tried  to  pick  out  only  such 
words  as  will  contain  the  desired  sound,  in  the  pro- 
nunciation of  every  speaker  who  uses  the  sound  at 
all,  unless,  of  course,  his  natural  dialect  is  very 
different  indeed  from  mine. 

The  Consonants. 

h,  as  in  kick,  cane,  cart,  crab.  Note  that  this  sound 
is  spelt  with  ^  or  c  initially,  but  generally  ck  in  the 
middle  or  end  of  words.  Note  also  that  q  (or  qu),  as 
in  q^acky  expresses  merely  the  sound  of  k  followed  by 
w  ;  and  that  x,  as  in  fi,T,  is  simply  k  +  s. 

28 


ENGLISH  CONSONANTS  29 

g,  as  in  ^ive,  gate,  go,  grieve,  big. 

ng,  as  in  sin^,  hnng,  longing,  tongue.  Note  that, 
although  this  sound  is  written  ng,  it  has  not  the 
sound  of  either,  but  is  a  different  sound  altogether. 
It  is  one  sound  and  not  two,  and  has  already  been 
described  (p.  21).  In  finger  we  pronounce  not  only 
ordinary  ng,  but  also  g,  as  in  ^ave,  after  it.  Some 
people,  in  Lancashire,  for  instance,  pronounce  this 
combination — that  is,  ng,  and  then  g,  as  in  ^ave — also 
in  such  words  as  longing. 

t,  as  in  ^ake,  try,  Thomas,  hitter. 

d,  as  in  dog,  ^rake,  ditch,  hidden. 

n,  as  in  now,  nedX,  ^in,  "penny. 

th  (voiceless),  as  in  ^Aink,  thditch,  path,  throw, 
width. 

th  (voiced),  as  in  this,  thdX,  wither,  with. 

I,  as  in  like,  low,  ca//ing,  hill. 

r,  as  in  rat,  bread,  berry. 

s,  as  in  sing,  sake,  hiss,  face,  city.  Note  that  c  is 
often  written  for  this  sound. 

z,  as  in  ha-2:e,  bu^-^,  please,  desire.  Note  that  this 
sound  is  often  written  s. 

sh,  as  in  ship^shape,  shrew,  fish,  nsition,  face/zous. 
Note  that,  although  often  written  with  two  letters, 
the  sound  in  these  words  is  a  single  consonant.  It 
certainly  has  not  the  sound  which  either  s  or  h  usually 
have.  Note  also  that  the  '  sh  '-sound  is  sometimes 
written  ti  or  ci. 

sh  (voiced),  as  in  pleasure,  a^ure,  occasion.  This 
sound  is  not  uncommon  in  English,  but  we  have  no 
regular  letter  by  which  we  express  it  consistently. 
It  generally  occurs  in  words  which  are  written  with 
su  or  si. 

Of  THE 


30  THE  SOUNDS  OF  ENGLISH 

Note  that  what  we  call  the  *c/j '-sound,  as  in 
church,  catc//,  attach,  is  simply  t,  follow^ed  by  the 
sh-sound. 

In  the  same  way  the  sound  of  dge  in  hndge^  ha.dger, 
is  simply  a  combination  of  d  and  the  voiced  sh-sound. 
This  sound  is  often  written  with  j,  as  in  judge,  jeer ; 
or  simply  g,  as  in  ^in,  Giles,  gentle,  and  so  on.  The 
sounds  in  all  those  words  are  the  same,  namely,  d, 
followed  by  voiced  sh. 

p,  as  in  pipe,  puppy,  p\a.y,  top. 

b,  as  in  bs.t,  bright,  Mow,  co6,  stu6Me. 

jn,  as  in  ;/ian,  lamb,  thumb,  hymn,  time.  Note  that 
the  simple  sound  in  is  sometimes  pronounced  in 
words  where  inb  or  mn  are  written. 

w,  as  in  ze^ell,  throi^^ing. 

wh  is  merely  voiceless  w.  Many  English  speakers 
make  no  difference  between  wheel  and  z^'eal,  white  and 
ze'ight,  which  and  ze'itch.  Scotch  and  Irish  speakers 
usually  distinguish  by  pronouncing  voiceless  w  in 
those  words  where  wh  is  written.  The  student 
should  determine  what  is  his  practice  in  this  respect. 

/,  as  in  /at,  tuft,  epito-ph,  rough,  cough.  Note  the 
various  ways  in  which  this  sound  is  written. 

V,  as  in  z^oice,  sax^e,  doz;e. 

h,  as  in  hsit,  his,  etc.,  is  not,  properly  speaking,  a 
consonant,  but  merely  breath  with  stress  or  emphasis 
placed  upon  it.  Note  that  the  Aspirate  (h)  does  not 
generally  occur,  in  perfectly  natural  pronunciation, 
in  word  or  syllables  which  have  not  fairly  strong 
stress  ;  thus,  although  written,  it  is  not  usually 
pronounced  in  forehead,  except  by  affected  or  vulgar 
speakers. 

General    Note    on    English    Consonants. — We 


LETTERS  WHICH  EXPRESS  NO  SOUND         31 

often  write  a  double  consonant,  as  in  we//,  button,  and 
so  on,  but  in  these  cases  only  one  single  consonant  is 
pronounced.  Double  consonants  are,  however,  heard 
in  English  in  such  words  as  boo^-case,  where  what 
is  known  as  a  '  double  k  '-sound  is  pronounced ;  also 
in  such  phrases  as  '  sit  /ight.'  Here  the  first  word 
ends  with  /,  and  the  second  begins  with  t,  but 
although  we  have  two  separate  words,  they  are  quite 
as  closely  joined  together  in  pronunciation  as  the  two 
elements  of  the  compound  boo^-case. 

The  letter  r  expresses  no  consonantal  sound  when| 
it  stands— (^)  at  the  end  of  a  word  and  breath-group/ 
or  sentence ;  (6)  at  the  end  of  a  word  in  a  sentence^' 
when  the  next  word  begins  with  a  consonant,  as  iri 
'far  from  it';  (c)  in  the  middle  of  a  word,  beforq 
another  consonant,  as  in  heart,  cord,  bird.  In  thesd 
cases,  in  Standard  English,  the  r-sound  is  now  quitej 
lost,  but  the  vowel,  which  was  originally  short,  is  now' 
lengthened.  Thus,  there  is  no  difference,  in  the 
pronunciation  of  most  speakers  of  educated  English,^ 
between  laud  ^nd  lord,  colonel  and  kernel,  father  and' 
farther,  alms  and  arms. 

The  English  Vowel  Sounds. 

Owing  to  the  fact  that  the  same  letter  is  used  in 
English  spelling  to  express  a  variety  of  vowel  sounds, 
it  will  be  better,  in  order  to  emphasize  this  variety, 
not  to  group  all  the  sounds  expressed  by  each  letter 
together,  but  to  enumerate  the  actual  sounds  in  a 
more  or  less  logical  order,  quite  independent  of  the 
spelling.  The  letters  in  italics  are  those  which 
express  the  sound  under  discussion. 


2. 

)> 

3. 

>> 

4- 

n 

5- 

5) 

6. 

5> 

7. 

>J 

8. 

5> 

9- 

>5 

10. 

5) 

II. 

n 

12. 

j> 

32  THE  SOUNDS  OF  ENGLISH 

Simple  Vowels*  (as  distinct  from  diphthongs) : 

I.  The  sound  in  father,  heart,  mammri. 

„  hut,  come,  among,  blood. 

,,  f«ll,  should,  hook. 

,,  br^te,  brood,  who,  fiew,  hhie,  Jew, 

,,  not,  quahty,  swan. 

,,  saw,  sword,  dwarf,  ca^^se,  hoard, 
soft,  horse,  nought,  salt,  all,  aic'l. 

,,  butter,  Edinhicrgh,  together. 

„  hird,  curd,  heard,  word,  herd. 

„  hit,  s/lly,  hzss. 

,,  heat,  seed,  deceive,  beh'ef. 

,,  hen,  bed,  bread,  bred. 

,,  had,  hat,  sash,  sham. 

A'o^es  on  the  Simple  Vowels. — (a)  Nos.  i,  4,  6,  8,  10, 
only  occur  long ;  the  rest  are  alwaj^s  short. 

(b)  Nos.  3,  4,  5,  6,  are  rounded  vowels — that  is, 
pronounced  by  bringing  the  lips  more  or  less  together ; 
the  others  are  un-rounded. 

(c)  Notice  that  Nos.  3  and  4  are  very  much  alike 
in  sound;  so  are  5  and  6,  and  also  10  and  11.  The 
difference  between  the  vowels  in  each  of  these  pairs 
consists  not  only  in  length — the  first  in  each  case 
being  long,  the  second  short — but  also  in  other 
circumstances  in  the  way  of  using  the  tongue,  which 
produce  a  different  quality  of  sound.  Therefore 
No.  4  is  not  merely  No.  3  pronounced  long,  but  these 
are  two  distinct  and  different,  though  similar,  vowel 
sounds. 

*  Nos.  I  to  6  are  formed  with  the  back  part  of  the  tongue, 
and  arc  called  Back  vowels;  Nos.  9  to  12  are  formed  with  the 
/ore-part,  ov  front  of  the  tongue,  and  are  called  Front  vowels. 


SHORT  VOWELS— DIPHTHONGS  33 

{d)  No.  7  is  a  very  common  sound  in  English.  It 
is  only  used  in  unstressed  syllables,  and,  of  course,  is 
always  short.  The  ending  -er  always  has  this  sound. 
It  occurs  also  in  the  definite  article  '  the  '  when  it 
stands  before  a  word  beginning  with  a  consonant; 
in  the  indefinite  article  '  a'  or  '  an ';  in  the  pronoun 
'her'  when  unstressed;  and  in  many  other  short 
words  which  often  occur,  in  sentences,  without  stress. 
The  sound  is  sometimes  called  a  'vowel  murmur,' 
and  an  *  obscure  '  vowel. 

{e)  Scotch  speakers  would  not  naturally  pronounce 
the  English  sound  of  No.  8  at  all,  and  in  any  case 
would  pronounce  the  r  and  distinguish  two  quite 
separate  vowels  in  heard  and  word  respectively. 

(/)  Notice  that  y,  when  it  expresses  a  short  vowel, 
is  written  for  the  same  sound  as  that  expressed  more 
commonly  by  short  i  in  him.  There  is  no  difference 
in  pronunciation  between  him  and  hymn. 

The  Diphthongs. 

There  are  seven  true  diphthongal  sounds  in  English: 
two  which  have  the  short  w-sound  (as  in  pwll)  as  a 
second  element ;  three  which  have  as  a  second 
element  the  t-sound  in  hit ;  three  whose  second 
element  is  the  vowel  murmur  illustrated  in  No.  7  above. 

1.  The  u  Diphthongs. — i.  ou,  as  in  hoicse,  cow, 
bo^^gh,  count. 

2.  English  so-called  '  long  0,'  as  in  go,  snow,  dough, 
]oe,  goat,  wrote. 

II.  The  i  Diphthongs. — i.  oi,  as  in  voice,  hoy,  hoi\, 
employ. 

2.  English  so-called  '  long  a,'  as  in  gate,  pay, 
reign,  vain,  grate,  great,  pale,  pail. 

3 


34  THE  SOUNDS  OF  ENGLISH 

3.  English  so-called  'long  i,'  as  in  tie,  hide,  fly, 
height,  flz'o'ht. 

III.  The  Murmur  Diphthongs.  —  These  occur 
chiefly  before  an  r,  which  is  still  retained  in  the 
spelling,  but  no  longer  pronounced,  in  Standard 
English. 

1.  -eer,  etc.,  as  in  heev,  hear,  seer,  revere,  tier  (id^a). 

2.  -are,  etc.,  as  in  care,  a.ir,  there,  prayer. 

f^,  -ure,  etc.,  as  in  pure,  ohscw^e,  Muir,  skewer, 
(4.  -or,  etc.,  as  in  core,  oar,  ior. 


Notes  on  the  Diphthongs. 

(a)  The  sound  of  ou  (see  I.  i  above)  is  composed 
of  the  sound  a  in  father,  pronounced  short,  and 
followed  by  the  sound  of  a  in  pwll.  Vulgar  speakers 
sometimes  pronounce  this  diphthong  instead  of 
No.  I.  2. 

(6)  No.  I.  2  consists,  approximately,  of  the  short  0 
in  hot,  followed  by  the  u  of  pwll.  The  fact  that  we 
have  no  pure  long  o-sound  in  English,  like  the  sound 
in  French  heau  or  German  schon,  is  a  cause  of  great 
difficulty  when  Englishmen  try  to  learn  the  pro- 
nunciation of  foreign  languages.  Many  people  do 
not  recognize  at  all  that  *  long  0 '  is  a  diphthong,  but 
a  little  observation  will  convince  us  that  our  vowel 
in  go  really  is  made  up  of  two  distinct  vowel  sounds. 
If  the  sound  be  recorded  in  a  phonograph,  and  the 
instrument  reversed,  so  that  the  sound  is  uttered 
backwards,  the  two  elements  are  distinguishable  at 
once  to  the  most  untrained  listener.  Northern  English 
dialects  in  some  cases,  and  Scotch  speakers  in  nearly 
all,  pronounce  a  pure  o  without  any  diphthong. 


CHARACTERISTIC  ENGLISH  DIPHTHONGS      35 

(c)  No.  II.  I  consists,  approximately,  of  the  sound 
of  0  in  hot,  or  that  of  aw  lin  saw,  followed  by  the 
i-sound  in  b^'t. 

{d)  No.  II.  2  is  not  popularly  recognized  as  a 
diphthong,  so  that  English  speakers  are  often 
surprised  to  hear  that  their  '  long  a '  is  not  a  pure 
single  vowel  like  the  French  e.  Three  methods  of 
ascertaining  the  diphthongal  character  of  the  sound 
may  be  suggested :  careful  observation  of  one's  own 
and  others'  pronunciation  of  the  sound ;  comparison 
with  the  French  e  sound ;  the  phonograph  test 
already  mentioned  in  the  case  of  '  long  0.'  The 
diphthong  is  made  up,  approximately,  of  the  ^-sound 
in  m^n,  followed  by  the  i-sound  in  bzt.  Northern 
English  and  Scotch  speakers  pronounce  a  pure  vowel 
similar  to  that  of  French  e.  Vulgar  English  speakers, 
especially  in  large  towns,  tend  to  make  the  first 
element  similar  to  the  sound  of  a  in  cat,  or  even  to 
that  in  the  first  syllable  of  father. 

{e)  No.  II.  3  is  a  typical  diphthongal  sound.  It 
consists  of  the  a  in  father,  followed  by  the  i  of  hit. 
-Except  for  the  facts  that  this  sound  is  called  the  '  long 
i '  sound,  is  the  name  of  a  letter,  and  is  commonly 
expressed  by  a  single  symbol,  i  or  y,  there  would  be 
no  difficulty  in  at  once  recognizing  it  as  a  diphthong. 

(/)  The  sound  of  the  murmur  diphthongs  is  most 
clearly  heard  from  those  speakers  who  do  not  pro- 
nounce the  final  r  as  a  consonant.  No.  III.  i  is 
pronounced  by  this  class  of  speakers — that  is,  those 
who  speak  normal  Standard  English,  as  distinct  from 
a  Provincial  variety — with  the  z-sound  in  hit,  followed 
by  the  vowel  murmur  in  father.  Some  Scotch 
speakers,  w^ho  pronounce  the  r  with  a  trill  in  such 

3—2 


36  THE  SOUNDS  OF  ENGLISH 

a  word  as  heer,  appear  to  have  no  murmur  vowel  at 
all,  and  to  pass  directly  from  the  sound  of  '  long  e' 
as  in  b^^t,  to  the  trill  of  the  r. 

(g)  No.  III.  2  is,  approximately,  the  short  ^-sound, 
as  in  m^n,  followed  by  the  vowel  murmur.  Here 
again  Scotch  speakers  trill  or  '  roll '  the  r  in  such 
words  as  care,  and  pronounce  a  different  vowel  alto- 
gether, one  approximating  to,  or  identical  with,  French 
e.  In  this  case  there  is  little  or  no  vowel  murmur 
between  this  sound  and  the  r,  and  consequently  no 
diphthong. 

{h)  No.  III.  3  is  simply  the  sound  in  ptdl,  followed 
by  the  vowel  murmur.  Some  speakers  of  Standard 
English  do  not  use  this  sound  at  all,  but  substitute 
No.  III.  4  for  it  in  the  words  pure,  etc.  Others, 
again,  pronounce  the  first  element  of  III.  4  (see 
next  paragraph),  but  omit  the  murmur.  Yet  another 
class  pronounce  the  u  of  rude,  followed  by  the 
murmur.  Whatever  pronunciation  is  followed  in 
the  words  in  III.  3,  note  that  the  sound  of  con- 
sonantal y,  as  in  3/ear,  immediately  precedes  the  vowel 
sound. 

{i)  No.  III.  4  is  the  vowel  in  saw,  followed  by 
the  vowel  murmur.  By  most  speakers  of  Standard 
English,  probably,  of  the  younger  generation  the 
murmur  is  omitted,  so  that  little,  if  any,  difference 
is  made  between  caw  and  core.  Those  speakers  who 
pronounce  the  r  in  core,  etc.,  pronounce  no  vowel 
murmur  between  it  and  the  preceding  vowel. 

We  have  now  completed  the  list  of  English  sounds 
in  one  variety  of  Standard  Spoken  English.  The  first 
thing  the  student  should  do  is  to  make  a  similar  list 
of  the  sounds  which  exist  in  that  particular  variety 


SOUNDS  IN  COMBINATION  37 

of    English   which   he   himself  speaks,  and   also   of 
words  to  illustrate  each  sound. 

He  should  further  establish  the  habit  of  knowing 
quite  definitely  what  sounds  he  habitually  and 
naturally  uses  in  every  word.  He  should  learn  to 
pull  a  word  to  pieces,  as  it  were,  and  to  resolve  it 
into  the  phonetic  elements  of  which  it  is  built  up. 
Then  he  can  extend  the  process  for  whole  breath- 
groups  or  sentences,  being  careful  to  note  exactly, 
each  sound,  precisely  as  it  occurs  in  the  breath-group, 
not  as  if  pronounced  by  itself  or  in  a  separate  word. 

Sounds  in  Breath-Groups. 

When  we  begin  to  observe  carefully  our  pronuncia- 
tion of  sounds  in  consecutive  and  rapid  colloquial 
speech,  we  note  at  once  that  the  same  word  is  not 
always,  under  all  circumstances,  pronounced  by  us  in 
the  same  way,  but  we  utter  sometimes  one  sound, 
sometimes  another,  in  the  same  word. 

There  are  two  main  points  to  which  attention  may 
be  directed  in  this  kind  of  study ;  they  are  :  (i)  the 
other  sounds  which  occur  before  or  after  any  given 
sound,  and  (2)  the  degree  of  stress  or  emphasis  which 
a  word  naturally  receives  in  any  given  sentence. 

Influence  of  One  Sound  upon  Another. 

Contrast  the  sound  of  k  (written  c)  in  the  words  : 
cart,  come,  call,  cool,  with  that  in  cat,  ^ill,  ^ent.  You 
will  notice,  if  you  isolate  the  initial  consonant  of  these 
words,  that  the  ^-sound  in  the  former  group  is  slightly 
different  from  that  in  the  latter.  In  the  second  group 
of  words  the  sound  is  formed  rather  further  forward 


38  THE  SOUNDS  OF  ENGLISH 

in  the  mouth  than  in  the  first.  The  reason  of  this  is 
that  the  vowels  in  the  second  group  are  all  formed 
with  the  fore  part  of  the  tongue ;  those  of  the  first 
with  the  back  part. 

Compare  the  plural  of  cat,  tip,  rick,  with  that  of 
dog,  rod,  cob.  It  is  evident  that  the  final  consonant — 
that  is,  the  plural  ending — of  cat,  etc.,  is  the  s-sound, 
while  that  of  dog,  etc.,  is  a  ^-sound.  This  difference 
is  due  to  the  fact  that  g,  d,  b,  are  all  voiced  consonants, 
and  voice  the  following  -s  to  -^  ;  while  t,  p,  k,  are  them- 
selves voiceless  consonants,  so  that  the  voiceless  sound 
of  s  can  remain.  The  same  kind  of  process  is  observ- 
able in  past  tenses  of  verbs.  Those  which  end  in 
voiced  consonants  take  a  ^f-sound  to  form  the  past 
tense,  those  which  end  in  voiceless  consonants  take 
a  ^sound.  Thus,  bathed,  cried,  gazed,  shaved,  are  all 
pronounced  with  a  final  -d,  but  laughed,  passed,  hissed, 
puffed,  wished,  liked,  are  all  pronounced  (though  not 
written)  with  a  final  -t.  But  changes  brought  about 
by  two  sounds  coming  into  immediate  contact  are 
not  confined  to  sounds  occurring  in  the  same  word. 
They  take  place  also  through  the  influence  of  the 
initial  sound  of  a  word  upon  the  final  sound  of  the 
word  which  immediately  precedes  it  in  the  sentence. 
Thus  the  is  pronounced  with  the  vowel  i,  as  in  hit, 
before  words  beginning  with  a  vowel,  but  with  the 
vowel  murmur  before  those  which  begin  with  a  con- 
sonant. 

In  the  phrase  *  Fm  glad  I  met  you  '  the  t  of  met  and 
the  jy-sound  of  you  frequently  combine  in  rapid,  un- 
studied speech,  into  what  is  popularly  called  the 
cA-sound — that  is,  t  followed  by  the  sA-sound.  Again, 
careless  speakers  often  make  *  in  bed  '  into  '  im  bed.* 


STROxNG  AND  WEAK  FORMS  OF  WORDS        39 

In  this  case  the  b,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  is  a  Hp- 
consonant,  makes  n  into  a  hp-nasal — that  is,  into  m. 

The  question  of  whether  im  bed  is  an  elegant  pro- 
nunciation or  the  reverse  is  one  which  does  not  concern 
us  for  the  moment — it  is  enough  for  our  purpose  that 
this  pronunciation  actually  does  sometimes  occur  in 
English. 

A  careful  observation  of  our  own  natural  pro- 
nunciation, and  that  of  others,  will  reveal  innumer- 
able instances  of  sounds  being  changed  by  other 
sounds  with  which  they  come  in  contact.  But  for 
our  observation  to  be  of  any  use  it  is  absolutely 
necessary  that  the  pronunciation  should  be  natural 
and  not  distorted. 

The  Influence  of  Stress  on  Sounds. 

There  is  a  considerable  number  of  small  but  indis- 
pensable words  in  English  which  are  often  used,  in 
sentences,  with  hardly  any  stress.  When  this  is  the 
case  they  come  under  the  common  tendency  of  our 
language  to  pronounce  the  vowels  of  unstressed 
syllables  with  the  vowel  murmur.  A  few  examples 
will  illustrate  this  principle.  Compare  the  two  pro- 
nunciations of  each  of  the  words  in  italics  in  the 
following  sentences.  The  first  of  each  pair  shows 
the  strong  or  stressed  form  of  the  word,  the  second 
the  weak  or  unstressed  form : 

[Who's  this  book /or  ? 
jit's  for  me. 
Whom    (or,  more   familiarly,  who)   did  you 

speak  to  ? 
.1  spoke  to  lots  of  people — to  every  one  I  knew. 


To 


40  THE  SOUNDS  OF  ENGLISH 


Was 


/'You  said  he  wouldn't  be  there,  but  he  was, 

after  all. 
Yes ;  I  was  told  afterwards  that  he'd  come  if 
he  could. 

/-John  won't  be  able  to  come,  but  I  shall. 
Shall}  What  time  shall  you  arrive  ?    I  shall  arrive  at 

I  six  o'clock. 

I I  can't  make  out  what  this  dress  is  made  of. 
•'       iOh,  it's  made  o/silk. 


At 


(What  are  you  driving  at  ? 

il  think  you  and  I  are  at  cross-purposes. 


The   student   should  try  to  discover  as  many  of 
these  words  as  he  can  in  his  own  pronunciation. 


UNIVERSITY 


CHAPTER  IV 

VARIOUS  FORMS  OF  ENGLISH- 
I.  PRONUNCIATION 

In  the  preceding  chapter  we  ma}^  be  supposed  to 
have  considered  one  form  of  Enghsh,  more  especially 
as  regards  the  pronunciation,  with  some  care.  We 
assume  that  such  an  examination  as  that  which  we 
undertook  applies  primarily  to  our  own  pronuncia- 
tion. The  reader  will  naturally  have  tested  every 
statement  which  has  been  made,  in  the  first  instance, 
by  the  measure  of  his  own  speech,  which  he  will  in 
this  way  have  passed  completely  in  review.  In 
some  cases,  probably,  the  account  given  of  English 
sounds,  and  the  w^ords  given  to  illustrate  their  uses, 
will  have  differed  more  or  less  from  this  or  that 
reader's  own  pronunciation.  Still,  the  chief  exercise 
of  observation  so  far  has  been  made  upon  the  reader's 
own  habits  of  speech. 

In  the  present  chapter  we  are  going  to  try  to  direct 
our  observation  upon  the  speech  of  others,  and  to 
contrast  it  with  our  own. 

If  we  pay  attention  to  the  manner  of  speech  of  the 
various  people  of  all  sorts,  outside  our  own  family  and 
friends,  with  whom  we  come  in  contact,  perhaps  even 
in  a  single  day,  we  shall  almost  certainly  notice  that, 
in  some  respects  at  least,  their   English  is  more  or 

41 


42  VARIOUS  FORMS  OF  ENGLISH 

less  different  from  ours.  It  may  differ  in  pronuncia- 
tion, in  the  words  used,  in  its  grammatical  structure. 
Those  persons  whose  language  resembles  our  own 
most  closely  we  shall  find  are  our  parents,  our 
brothers  and  sisters,  or  other  members  of  our  family 
and  household,  and  the  companions  of  our  own  age 
with  whom  we  have  associated  most  closely  all  our 
lives.  If  we  have  a  circle  of  friends  whom  we  see 
constantly,  in  work  or  in  play,  especially  if  their 
parents  and  our  own  form  a  pretty  close  and  intimate 
society,  it  will  probably  appear,  in  most  cases,  that 
we  all  speak  almost  exactly  alike,  apart  from  certain 
small  differences  which  are  due  to  personal  tricks  or 
peculiarities  or  affectations.  All  the  members  of 
such  a  circle  as  we  are  supposing  will  pronounce  the 
same  words  in  the  same  way ;  they  will  make  use  of 
the  same  expressions,  the  same  words ;  none  will 
have  any  glaring  peculiarities  in  his  way  of  speaking 
English,  which  will  arouse  surprise  or  laughter  in  the 
others.  Now,  these  people  and  ourselves  form  what 
is  known  as  a  community,  or  group  of  persons  whose 
social  intercourse  is  frequent  and  close. 

It  is  from  these  intimate  associates  of  our  child- 
hood that  we  learn  to  speak — first  of  all  from  our 
mothers  and  fathers,  our  brothers  and  sisters  and 
nurses,  and  then  from  their  friends  and  neighbours 
and  the  children  of  the  latter.  But  if  we  learn  some- 
thing from  others,  they  also  learn  something  fromi  us. 
There  is  a  mutual  give  and  take,  in  the  building  up 
of  speech,  among  all  those  who  are  brought  into 
constant  contact  with  each  other.  Each  learns  from 
all ;  all  learn  from  each. 

It  is  therefore  a   natural  and  inevitable  circum- 


BEGINNINGS  OF  DIALECTAL  DIFFERENCES    43 

Stance  that  a  community  of  more  or  less  intimate 
friends  should  all  speak  in  practically  the  same  way. 
We  say,  in  this  case,  that  they  speak  the  same 
Dialect  By  Dialect  is  simply  meant  a  way  of  speaking. 

But  as  we  grow  older,  we  widen  our  circle  of 
friends  and  associates  :  we  go  to  school  in  another 
part  of  the  country,  we  enter  a  new  and  different 
community,  or  perhaps  several  new  communities. 

Now,  the  moment  w^e  go  outside  our  original  circle, 
whether  it  be  by  leaving  the  place  where  we  were 
brought  up  so  far,  or  by  coming  into  contact  with 
people  of  a  different  class,  or  occupation,  or  with 
different  interests  from  ourselves  and  our  early  circle 
of  friends— the  moment  this  happens,  we  are  at  once 
struck  by  the  fact  that  the  way  of  speech  of  the 
persons  who  form  the  fresh  circle  or  circles  differs 
far  more  from  our  own,  and  therefore  from  that  of 
our  old  associates,  than  did  the  speech  of  any  of  these 
from  that  of  the  others. 

Let  us  look  at  some  of  the  conditions  w^hich 
naturally  tend  to  produce  these  differences. 

Difference  of  Interest  and  Occupation. 

Suppose  we  have  been  brought  up  in  the  countr3% 
and  are  moved  into  a  town,  w^hat  are  the  different 
conditions  w^e  shall  expect  to  find  ? 

There  is  first  of  all  the  local  native  Dialect  of  the 
place.  This,  as  w^e  know%  is  different  in  different 
parts  of  the  country.  Then  there  is  the  difference  in 
the  interests,  occupations,  ideas,  between  country 
people  and  dwellers  in  towns.  In  the  country,  men's 
thoughts  naturally  run  on  the  crops,  on  cattle,  on 


44  VARIOUS  FORMS  OF  ENGLISH 

horses,  on  gardening,  on  the  growth  of  fruit  and 
vegetables,  on  rural  sports  and  pastimes.  In  towns, 
most  of  these  things  are  more  or  less  remote,  and 
touch  the  greater  part  of  the  population  not  at  all. 
They  are  known  chiefly  from  reports  in  the  news- 
papers or  from  books.  Here  people  think  of  shops 
and  offices,  of  tramways,  of  business  connected  with 
these,  of  museums  and  theatres  and  concerts.  This 
means  that  a  child  brought  up  in  the  country 
will  of  necessity  have  different  interests,  occupations, 
ideas,  and  amusements,  from  one  who  has  lived  all 
his  life  in  a  city.  The  vocabulary  of  the  two  is 
certain  to  be  very  different,  since  the  things  which 
each  naturally  thinks  and  speaks  about  are  so 
different. 

Differences  of  Class. 

What  we  now  call  class  was  originally  largely  a 
question  of  occupation,  but  at  the  present  day  the 
two  by  no  means  correspond  in  all  cases.  If  simi- 
larity of  language  exists  among  those  who  associate 
together,  as  is  indeed  the  case,  then  we  can  under- 
stand that  people  who  belong  to  the  same  social 
standing  will  agree  in  their  manner  of  speech  more 
closely  than  people  of  different  positions  in  the 
world.  The  country  gentry,  the  clergy,  the  profes- 
sional classes,  the  commercial  classes,  military  men, 
shopkeepers,  farmers,  labourers,  artisans,  costers, 
tramps,  form  so  many  groups  of  persons  who 
associate  more  frequently  together,  on  the  whole, 
than  they  do  with  members  of  the  other  groups. 
The  less  men  see  of  each  other,  the  more  different 
will  the  form  of  speech  of  each  become. 


CLASS  AND  DIALECT  45 

Therefore,  class,  since  it  throws  some  people 
together,  and  separates  them  from  others,  is  very 
important  in  producing  similarity  and  differences  in 
language. 

Of  course,  no  class  at  the  present  day  is  com- 
pletely cut  off  from  social  intercourse  with  others,  so 
that  it  cannot  be  said  that  each  class  has  its  own 
manner  of  speaking  English,  which  differs  from  all 
the  others.  Just  so  far  as  different  classes  inter- 
mingle, there  will  be  agreement  in  their  speech  ;  just 
so  far  as  class  is  still  a  bar  to  social  intercourse, 
distinctions  in  language  of  this  kind  will  survive  and 
increase. 

If  we  take  as  an  example  of  class  differences  three 
very  distinct  grades,  and  compare  their  manner  of 
speaking  English,  we  shall  see  that  the  separation 
of  class  from  class  is  a  very  real  thing,  and  that  the 
difference  in  language  which  results  is  considerable. 
Take  a  successful  London  physician,  a  prosperous 
and  fairly  educated  London  shopkeeper,  and  a  coster 
from  the  East  End.  These  three  men,  owning  to 
their  occupations,  their  inclinations,  and  the  general 
customs  of  English  society,  do  not  naturally  come 
into  close  social  relations  with  each  other.  In  fact, 
they  practically  never  meet,  unless  one  should 
require  the  services  of  the  other  to  look  after  his 
health  or  to  supply  his  wants.  They  all  speak  a 
form  of  English  ;  each  understands  the  other  quite 
well,  and  yet  the  pronunciation,  the  vocabulary,  and 
the  grammatical  forms  which  each  uses  differs  more 
or  less  considerably  from  that  of  the  others.  These 
differences  are  sufficiently  great,  especially  those  of 
pronunciation,  to  form  what  we  call  a  difference  of 


46  VARIOUS  FORMS  OF  ENGLISH 

Dialect,  and  we  have  here  what  may  be  properly 
described  as  so  many  Class  Dialects. 

Difference  of  Place  of  Abode. 

If,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is  possible  for  persons  who 
live  in  the  same  city  to  be  so  far  separated  from 
each  other,  by  the  mere  differences  of  class,  as  to 
speak  different  dialects,  how  much  greater,  as  it 
would  appear,  must  be  the  separation  of  people  who 
live  long  distances  apart,  and  who  never  come  into 
contact  with  each  other  at  all  ? 

As  we  travel  to  different  parts  of  England,  from 
South  to  North,  from  the  centre  of  the  country  to  the 
extreme  West,  and  so  on,  we  cannot  help  being  struck 
wath  the  great  differences  betw^een  the  speech,  say, 
of  Sussex  and  that  of  Yorkshire,  between  that  of 
Oxfordshire  and  that  of  Cornwall. 

The  reason  of  these  differences  is  that  each  of 
these  provinces  possessed,  from  very  early  times,  a 
separate  dialect  of  English,  and  since  the  geographical 
separation  continues,  of  course,  to  exist,  and  there- 
fore free  intercourse  between  the  inhabitants  of  the 
various  districts  mentioned  is  impossible,  the  dialectal 
differences  continue  also. 

Varieties  of  speech  of  this  kind,  which  are  peculiar 
to  particular  districts  or  counties  of  England,  may 
be  called  Regional  Dialects,  Such  are  the  Somerset- 
shire dialect,  the  Cheshire  dialect,  and  so  on. 

Now,  if,  instead  of  confining  our  observation  in 
each  district  to  the  agricultural  or  industrial  popula- 
tions, we  were  to  consider  also  the  speech  of  the 
clergy,  the  medical  men,  or  the  squires  in  each  part 


STANDARD  ENGLISH  NO  LONGER  REGIONAL  47 

of  the  country,  we  should  find  that  in  most  cases 
the  Yorkshire  rector  or  squire  spoke,  to  all  in- 
tents and  purposes,  precisely,  the  same  form  of 
English  as  the  rector  or  the  squire  in  Somersetshire. 
The  reason  of  this  is  that  certain  classes,  known  as 
the  upper  and  educated  classes,  in  every  province  of 
England,  no  longer  speak  the  local.  Regional  Dialed^ 
but  speak  a  Class  Dialect,  which  is  practically  the 
same,  at  the  present  day,  in  all  parts  of  the  country. 
A  few  words  are  necessary  concerning  this  particular 
Dialect. 

The  Standard  Form  of  English  Speech. 

The  most  important  test  of  dialect  is  pronuncia- 
tion. Different  groups  of  people  may  have  different 
interests  and  occupations,  which,  as  we  have  seen, 
may  influence  their  vocabulary,  and  yet  they  may 
pronounce  English  so  far  in  the  same  way  that  we 
can  detect  no  difference,  in  this  respect,  between 
them,  without  the  most  careful  and  thorough  com- 
parison of  their  language.  In  this  case  we  say  that 
such  people  speak  the  same  dialect.  Now,  we  have 
referred  to  the  fact  that  all  over  England  there 
exists  a  form  of  language,  which  is  common  to  the 
m.ore  educated  classes  in  all  districts. 

This  is  a  kind  of  English  which  is  tinged  neither 
with  the  Northern,  nor  Midland,  nor  Southern 
peculiarities  of  speech,  which  gives  no  indication,  in 
fact,  of  where  the  speaker  comes  from — the  form  of 
English  which  is  generally  known  simply  as  good 
English,  It  is  the  ambition  of  all  educated  persons 
in  this  country  to  acquire  this  manner  of  speaking. 


48  VARIOUS  FORMS  OF  ENGLISH 

and  this  is  the  form  of  our  language  which  foreigners 
wish  to  learn.  If  we  can  truthfully  say  of  a  mari 
that  he  has  a  Scotch  accent,  or  a  Liverpool  accent, 
or  a  Welsh  accent,  or  a  London  accent,  or  a 
Gloucestershire  accent,  then  he  does  not  speak  '  good 
English  '  with  perfect  purity. 

Since  this  form  of  English  is  not  now  confined  to 
any  one  province,  but  is  spoken  by  people  of  corre- 
sponding education  and  cultivation  all  over  the 
country,  we  say  that  it  is  no  longer  a  Regional  Dialect, 
but  the  dialect  of  a  Class,  using  the  word  in  a  very 
wide  sense. 

The  origin  of  good  English,  or,  as  it  may  also  be 
called,  Standard  English,  w^as  probably  the  Court 
Dialect  of  the  fifteenth  century,  and  this,  in  its  turn, 
was  primarily  the  speech  of  the  upper  classes  in 
London.  It  was  not  a  pure  dialect,  inasmuch  as  it 
was  a  blending  of  the  English  of  the  Midlands  and 
of  the  South.  This  mixed  dialect  gradually  spread 
among  all  those  who  came  into  contact  with  the 
Court,  and  was  adopted  by  custom  as  the  best  and 
most  polite  form  of  English.  For  more  than 
-300  years  this  dialect,  at  first,  no  doubt,  merely  held 
to  be  the  fashionable  mode  of  speech,  has  gained  in 
prestige,  until,  at  the  present  day,  it  is  spreading  all 
over  the  country,  and  among  all  classes.  It  has 
largely  influenced  the  local  dialects,  for  the  children 
hear  a  form  of  it  from  the  teachers  in  their  schools, 
servants  hear  it  from  their  masters,  tradesmen  from 
their  customers — every  one  hears  it  in  the  Parish 
Church. 


RELATIVE  MERITS  OF  THE  ENGLISH  DIALECTS   49 


In  what  Sense  Standard  English  is  Better  than 
Other  Forms. 

No  form  of  language  is,  in  itself,  better  than  any 
other  form.  A  dialect  gains  whatever  place  of 
superiority  it  enjoys  solely  from  the  estimation  in 
which  it  is  commonly  held.  It  is  natural  that  the 
language  of  the  Court  should  come  to  be  regarded  as 
the  most  elegant  and  refined  type  of  English,  and 
that  those  who  do  not  speak  that  dialect  naturally, 
should  be  at  the  pains  of  acquiring  it.  This  is  what 
has  happened,  and  is  still  happening,  to  the  dialect 
which  we  call  Standard  English.  Of  course,  since  this 
form  of  English  is  used  in  the  conversation  of  the 
refined,  the  brilliant,  and  the  learned,  it  has  become 
a  better  instrument  for  the  expression  of  ideas  than 
any  other  dialect  now  spoken.  This  is  the  result  of 
the  good  fortune  which  this  particular  dialect  had 
to  reach  its  position  of  pre-eminence  over  the  others. 

When  we  speak  of  Good  English,  or  Standard 
English,  or  Pure  English,  as  distinct  from  what  is 
known  as  Provincial  English,  or  Vulgar  English,  we 
must  remember  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  original 
nature  of  these  other  dialects  which  is  in  itself 
inferior,  or  reprehensible,  or  contemptible.  In  a 
word,  the  other  dialects  are  in  reality,  and  apart  from 
fashion  and  custom,  quite  as  good  as  Standard 
English,  considered  simply  as  forms  of  language  ; 
but  they  have  not  the  same  place  in  general  estima- 
tion, they  have  not  been  so  highly  cultivated,  and 
they  have  not  the  same  wide  currency.  It  is  in  some 
ways  better  to  speak  a  pure  regional  dialect  than  to 

4     ' 


50  VARIOUS  FORMS  OF  ENGLISH 

attempt  to  speak  Standard  English,  and  to  mix  and 
overlay  it  with  provincial  pronunciations. 

The   Nature  of  the   Differences  to   be   observed 
among  English  Speakers. 

We  have  so  far  only  called  attention,  in  a  general 
way,  to  the  fact  that  differences  exist,  and  we  have 
pointed  out  briefly  the  reason  of  these  differences  as 
consisting  in  Class  or  Regional  Dialects.  We  have 
now  to  ask  of  what  precise  nature  are  these  differ- 
ences ?  The  most  obvious,  and  in  many  ways  the 
most  important,  are  varieties  of  pronunciation. 
If  the  pronunciation  of  another  person  differs  from 
our  own,  it  may  do  so  in  two  ways.  There  may  be 
(i)  differences  in  the  sounds  themselves ;  and 
(2)  differences  in  the  use  of  the  sounds.  We  may 
consider  these  points  separately. 

I.  Differences  in  the  Sounds  Themselves. 

By  this  is  meant  that  in  many  cases,  if  the  pro- 
nunciation of  two  speakers  be  compared,  it  is  found 
that  each  pronounce  certain  sounds,  generally  vowels, 
but  possibly  consonants  as  well,  which  the  other  does 
not  use  at  all  in  his  own  natural  way  of  speaking 
English,  and  which  he  is,  perhaps,  unable  at  first  to 
pronounce  at  all. 

If  we  are  merely  comparing  the  pronunciation  of 
people  of  the  same  class,  education,  and  general 
surroundings  with  our  own,  it  is  possible  we  shall 
find  no  examples  of  such  differences.  But  if  we  go 
further  afield  and  take  the  speech  of  persons  who 
speak  a  definite  Regional  Dialect,  whereas  we  speak 


SOUNDS  PECULIAR  TO  DIALECTS  51 

Standard  English ;  or  supposing  we  ourselves  habitu- 
ally speak  a  Regional  Dialect,  if  we  compare  this  with 
the  dialect  of  quite  a  different  part  of  the  country, 
then  we  shall  find,  in  all  probability,  that  there  are 
certain  vowel  sounds  in  that  dialect  with  which  we 
are  quite  unfamiliar.  We  may  pronounce  in  the 
same  words  sounds  which  are  something  like  them, 
but  they  are  not  absolutely  and  exactly  the  same 
sounds.     A  few  examples  must  suffice. 

(a)  Lancashire  r.  In  such  words  ?is  bird, part,  card, 
etc.,  most  speakers  of  Standard  English  pronounce  no 
r-sound  at  all.  In  Lancashire  a  peculiar  r  is  heard, 
formed  by  turning  the  point  of  the  tongue  upwards 
and  backwards,  immediately  after,  or  perhaps  while 
pronouncing  the  vowel  which  precedes  it.  This,  to 
Southern  ears,  or  at  any  rate  to  ears  accustomed  to 
Standard  English,  has  a  very  harsh,  ugly  sound,  which 
is  difficult  to  imitate  unless  we  have  always  been  in 
the  habit  of  using  the  sound. 

(b)  The  Oxfordshire  and  Berkshire  sound  in 
*  write,'  '  Minety,'  '  eye:  This  diphthong  is  quite  dif- 
ferent from  that  in  use  in  Standard  English,  and  to 
unaccustomed  ears  sounds  almost  like  the  sound  in 
*boy,'  etc.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  would  seem  to 
consist  of  the  vowel  murmur  (as  in  father),  followed 
by  the  i  in  h^'t.  It  is  very  nearly,  if  not  quite,  the 
same  sound  as  that  heard,  in  the  same  positions,  in 
the  Irish  brogue. 

(c)  Oxfordshire  and  Berkshire  sound  in  'boot,' 
'true,'  'who,'  '  brwte,'  etc.  It  is  impossible  to 
describe  this  sound  in  popular  language  in  such  a 
way  as  to  convey  an  idea  of  its  character.  Very 
nearly   the    same    sound    is    heard    among    vulgar 

4—2 


52  VARIOUS  FORMS  OF  ENGLISH 

Speakers  in  London.  It  is  ver}-  unlike  the  pure 
*  oo  '-sound  (better  called  the  '  u  '-sound)  of  Good 
English,  and  is  not  very  different  from  the  French 
sound  in  to^^t,  cou,  etc.  A  very  similar  sound,  though 
not  quite  identical,  occurs  in  Devonshire. 

(d)  Standard  English  vowel  in  cat,  shall,  fan,  etc. 
This  vowel,  which  is  so  common  in  the  speech  of 
all  who  speak  Standard  English  in  the  South  of 
England,  and  which  is  very  characteristic  of  the 
Standard  dialect,  is  unknown  in  the  North  Midlands, 
the  North  of  England,  and  in  Scotland.  Even 
educated  speakers,  who  otherwise  speak  the  Standard 
dialect,  often  find  the  greatest  difficulty  in  pronounc- 
ing this  sound  at  all,  and  substitute  for  it  a  sound 
w^hich  is  nearly  identical  with  the  first  vowel  in 
father,  only  it  is  pronounced  very  short. 

(e)  Standard  English  ^t  in  pwll,  cowld,  good,  etc. 
This  characteristic  sound,  which  is  the  regular  sound 
in  the  above  words  in  the  Standard  Dialect,  is 
unknown  in  Scotland  and  in  the  true  Lancashire 
Dialect.  In  the  former  countr}^  all  but  thoroughly 
Anglicized  speakers  invariably  make  no  distinction 
between  the  words  pool  and  ptdl.  They  pronounce 
in  both  cases  the  sound  which  in  Standard  English 
occurs  in  pool,  only  they  pronounce  it  very  short. 
The  short  variety  of  this  sound  is  quite  unknown  in 
Standard  English.  Scotchmen  have  the  greatest 
difficulty  to  acquire  the  sound  in  our  pull.  In 
Lancashire  a  sound  is  used  which  (to  the  ear)  closely 
resembles  the  sound  in  Standard  English  b;/t,  and 
the  sound  in  pull  is  extremely  difficult  for  a 
Lancashire  Dialect  speaker. 


DISTRIBUTION  OF  SOUNDS  53 

2.  Different  Use  of  the  Same  Sounds. 

It  often  happens  that  speakers  whose  speech  is  so 
far  identical  that  none  of  them  pronounces  any 
sounds  which  are  not  also  in  general  use  among  the 
others,  yet  differ  among  themselves  as  to  which 
sounds  they  use  in  which  words.  There  are  several 
sounds  in  Standard  English  whose  usage  varies,  some 
speakers  uttering  them  in  certain  words,  in  which 
other  speakers  employ  another  sound.  The  sounds 
aw  (as  in  saw)  and  o  (as  in  not)  interchange  in  the 
same  words  (though  not  in  these  tv/o  words)  among 
different  speakers. 

The  present  writer  habitually  uses  the  vowel  sound 
of  saw  in  the  following  words  :  alter,  dtar,  ffl^lter, 
pdtry,  s^lt,  iattli,  lost,  cost,  frost,  broth,  froth,  cloth, 
soft,  off,  cowgh ;  and  the  sound  of  not  in  office,  officer, 
coffee,  hospital,  costly,  God,  moth.  On  the  other 
hand,  many  speakers  have  the  aw  sound  in  all  these 
words,  while  others  have  only  the  sound  of  o,  as  in 
not,  in  both  groups ;  others,  again,  use  both  sounds, 
but  distribute  them  differently  among  the  two  groups. 
Such  differences  of  habit  represent  a  mere  fluctua- 
tion of  usage  within  the  Standard  Dialect,  and  do 
not,  in  themselves,  constitute  a  difference  of  dialect. 

The  word  ass  is  pronounced  by  most  speakers  so  as 
to  rhyme  with  pass  (that  is,  with  a,  as  in  father),  but 
by  others  with  the  same  vowel  as  in  gas,  has;  lass 
has  a  similar  fluctuation.  Other  speakers,  again, 
pronounce  the  same  vowel  (that  in  cat)  in  all  these 
words. 

The  words  clerk,  Derby,  Serjeant,  hearth,  are  pro- 
nounced by  good  speakers  with  the  a-sound  of  park, 
but  by  others  with  the  sound  in  lurh,  birth,  etc.     In 


54  VARIOUS  FORMS  OF  ENGLISH 

this  case,  Standard  usage  is  now  fixed  in  favour  of 
the  former  pronunciation,  and  we  must  regard  the 
other  as  either  a  provinciahsm  or  a  vulgarism. 

Much  has  been  written  of   late  years   about  the 

*  fashionable '  habit  of  '  dropping  the  g '  in  present 
participles  and  verbal  nouns. 

The  mode  of  pronunciation  referred  to  is  usually 
expressed  by  satirists  by  the  spellings  'hunting' 
^  shootin','  *ndin\'  '  fnormn\'  ^  comin\'  etc.  The 
reader  will  note  in  passing  that  it  is  quite  incorrect 
and  meaningless  to  speak  of  '  dropping  the  ^,'  since 
this  refers  only  to  the  spelling  and  not  to  the  facts 
of  pronunciation.  What  actually  happens  is  that  for 
the  ^  ng 'sound  (described  above,  p.  21)  a  different 
kind  of  nasal  consonant  is  substituted. 

As  regards  the  habit  itself,  there  is  no  doubt  that 
it  is  rapidly  gaining  ground  among  an  increasingly 
large  class  of  speakers  of  Standard  English.  With 
some  the  pronunciations  *  moniin\'  *  htmtin\'  etc., 
are  natural,  with  others  they  are  assumed  deliberately. 
In  any  case,  it  seems  probable  that  we  have  here  the 
result  of  a  natural  tendency  of  change  in  language. 
A  very  large  number  of  the  rural  dialects  show  this 
tendency,  and  it  may  have  been  introduced  into 
Standard  English  by  speakers  who  had  acquired  the 
habit    from    them.      Probably,    fifty    years    hence, 

*  hunting''  etc.,  will  be  the  most  usual  and  received 
pronunciation  among  the  best  speakers. 

Individual  Peculiarities  of  Pronunciation. 

Speakers  of  all  dialects  are  liable  to  personal 
peculiarities  of  speech,  which  may  arise  from  imper- 
fect ear  or  power  of  imitation,  from  some  defect  in 


WHAT  IS  VULGARISM  IN  SPEECH?  55 

articulation,  or  from  mere  carelessness.  Among 
speakers  of  Standard  English  we  may  instance  such 
tricks  as  the  substitution  of  /  for  voiceless  th,  and  of 
V  for  voiced  th.  Thus,  we  sometimes  hear  '/ink  '  for 
think,  and  '  vis  '  for  this.  Again,  some  persons  find 
difficulty  in  articulating  any  kind  of  r-sound,  and 
substitute  that  of  w  for  it.  Such  purely  individual 
variations  rarely  survive  beyond  childhood,  but 
succumb  to  the  derision  or  censure  of  others. 

Vulgarisms  and  Provincialisms. 

A  provincialism  is  a  pronunciation  or  an  expression 
which  definitely  belongs  to  a  provincial  or  regional 
dialect.  Many  peculiarities  which  we  hear  in  the 
speech  of  persons  who  speak  on  the  whole  Standard 
English  are  of  this  origin.  The  reason  of  their 
occurrence  is  that  the  speaker  has  not  completely 
freed  himself  from  his  native  regional  dialect.  A 
vulgarism  is  a  peculiarity  which  intrudes  itself  into 
Standard  English,  and  is  of  such  a  nature  as  to  be 
associated  with  the  speech  of  vulgar  or  uneducated 
speakers.  The  origin  of  pure  vulgarisms  is  usually 
that  they  are  importations,  not  from  a  regional  but 
from  a  class  dialect — in  this  case  from  a  dialect 
which  is  not  that  of  a  province,  but  of  a  low  or 
uneducated  social  class.  Thus,  a  vulgarism  is  usually 
a  variety  of  Standard  English,  but  a  bad  variety. 
An  example  of  what  is  meant  is  the  pronunciation  of 
tape  so  that  it  is  indistinguishable  from  the  word 
type.  Again,  the  so-called  'dropping  of  an  h,'  as 
when  people  say  'orse  for  horse,  is  distinctly  a 
vulgarism.     In  some  cases  a  provincialism  becomes  a 


56  VARIOUS  FORMS  OF  ENGLISH 

vulgarism  by  being  familiar  to,  and  familiarly  asso- 
ciated with,  vulgar  speakers.  Thus,  to  introduce  the 
Lancashire  pronunciation  of  *  bush  '  (so  as  almost  to 
rhyme  with  rush)  into  a  Standard  English  sentence 
would  certainly  produce  the  effect  of  vulgarity.  It 
is  very  important,  however,  to  bear  in  mind  that 
pure  provincial  dialects  in  themselves  are  not  vulgar. 
It  is  a  profound  error  to  imagine  that  dialect  speech 
is  an  attempt  to  imitate  Standard  English ;  it  is 
nothing  of  the  kind,  but  is  a  separate  and  indepen- 
dent form  of  English.  It  is  only  when  a  speaker  is 
attempting  to  speak  Standard  English,  and  lapses 
into  provincial  forms,  that  these  are  liable  to  sound 
vulgar. 

Peculiarities  due  to  Difference  of  Age. 

The  speech  of  a  very  old  person  is  pretty  certain 
to  contain  some  features  which  are  strange  to  that 
of  a  much  younger  speaker,  even  of  the  same  class 
and  standard  of  refinement. 

The  present  writer  has  heard  'goold'  for  gold  and 
'  kyard '  for  card  from  a  very  old  man  man}^  years 
ago,  and  knows  people  still  living  whose  grandmothers 
pronounced  the  first  syllables  of  tjuality  and  quantity 
so  as  to  rhyme  respectively  with  shall  and  plan. 
Such  pronunciations  as  neighborhood,  'erb,  himble, 
'ospital,  may  still  be  heard  from  old-fashioned 
speakers.  None  of  these  pronunciations  were,  or 
are,  vulgarisms  in  those  from  whom  they  were  heard  : 
they  were  simply  old-fashioned.  If  used  by  young 
people  at  the  present  day,  they  would  appear  so 
eccentric  and  unlike  the  best  contemporary  usage 
that  they  would  almost  seem   vulgar.     This  shows 


CAUSES  OF  VARIETY  IN  SPEECH  57 

that  the  Standard  of  what  is  thought  good  or  the 
reverse  changes  from  age  to  age.  This  fact  is  very 
important  to  remember. 

We  have  now  made  mention  of  the  principal 
causes  of  such  varieties  as  we  may  observe  in  the 
pronunciation  of  those  with  whom  w^e  come  into 
contact.  They  are  differences  of  Social  Class,  of 
Native  Dialect,  of  Age,  and  those  due  to  defective 
powers  of  hearing  and  reproducing  sounds. 


CHAPTER  V 

VARIOUS  FORMS  OF  ENGLISH— 
2.  GRAMMAR,  PHRASEOLOGY,  AND  VOCABULARY 

The  diversity  in  the  pronunciation  of  English,  which 
we  discussed  in  the  last  chapter,  is  paralleled  by  an 
almost  equally  variable  Vocabulary,  Grammar,  and 
set  of  idiomatic  expressions. 

Grammar:  the  Standard  Language. 

The  Grammar  of  Standard  English  is  practically 
fixed  and  uniform,  so  that  among  educated  speakers, 
no  matter  how  much  they  may  differ  in  other 
respects,  Pronunciation,  Vocabulary,  and  Idiom,  they 
will  generally  agree  in  using  the  same  grammatical 
forms. 

In  fact,  divergences  of  Grammar  of  any  great 
extent  are  usually  assignable  to  Regional  Dialects. 
There  are,  however,  a  few  points  of  this  order  in 
which  speakers  of  Standard  English  may  disagree, 
in  very  colloquial  speech,  without  it  being  necessary 
to  attribute  such  difference  of  habit  to  separate 
Regional  or  Class  Dialects.  The  differences  we  speak 
of  are  in  reality  due  rather  to  the  adherence  on  the 
part  of  some  speakers  to  a  more  old-fashioned  mode 
of  speech.     A  few  examples  will  suffice. 

58 


VARIETY  IN  GRAMMATICAL  USAGE  59 

The  use  of  the  form  ain't,  especially  in  interro- 
gative sentences,  is  at  the  present  time  discounte- 
nanced by  many,  although  it  is  in  frequent  use 
among  as  many  more  whose  education  and  breeding 
are  unimpeachable.  Instead  of  *  Ain't  you  coming 
with  us  ?'  *  It's  very  hot  to-day,  ain't  it  ?'  and  so  on, 
many  people  prefer  *  aren't  you,'  'isn't  it,'  or,  in  the 
latter  case,  some  very  precise  persons  who  are  afraid 
to  speak  naturally,  lest  they  should  fall  into  vul- 
garity, say  *  is  it  not.'  We  merely  note  the  variety 
here,  without  in  any  way  deciding  in  favour  of  one 
form  or  the  other. 

Again,  'em  for  them  is  perhaps  rather  commoner 
than  the  latter  in  very  colloquial  speech.  The 
former  word,  as  we  shall  see  later  on,  is  not  a  con- 
traction of  them,  but  is  quite  distinct  from  it  in 
origin ;  the  apostrophe  which  it  is  the  custom  to 
write  before  the  shorter  word  is  due  to  the  mistaken 
idea  that  the  word  is  a  contraction.  The  use  of  'em 
is  another  example  of  an  old-fashioned  form  which 
by  some  is  considered  vulgar. 

Grammatical  Divergence  among  the  Dialects 
Proper. 

When  we  consider  the  speech  of  the  Regional 
Dialects,  the  grammatical  differences  among  these, 
or  between  them  and  Standard  English,  are  very 
much  greater.  Many  grammatical  usages  that 
speakers  of  Standard  English  would  consider  terrible 
vulgarisms  occur  in  these  dialects,  and  are  there 
perfectly  '  right '  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  permis- 
sible to  use  this  word  when  speaking  of  language — 


6o  VARIOUS  FORMS  OF  ENGLISH 

namely,  in  that  they  are  the  regular  and  habitual 
forms  of  the  dialects.  What  people  who  have  not 
studied  the  history  of  our  language  would  call  the 
vagaries  of  the  dialects,  are  in  most  cases  every  whit 
as  justifiable  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  student 
of  this  subject  as  the  grammatical  usage  of  the  most 
refined  form  of  English.     When  a  Scotsman  says 

*  these  comes,'  he  is  not  perpetrating  an  ignorant 
vulgarism,  but  is  using  an  old  form  of  the  Plural 
of  the  Present  Tense  which  is  common  to  Northern 
Dialects  of  English.  The  Oxfordshire  plurals  hoiisen, 
primrosen,  are  no  more  eccentric  than  the  Standard 
form  children,  although  by  custom  we  do  not  use  the 
weak  form  of  the  Plural  in  the  above  words. 

The  Oxfordshire  and  Berkshire  use  of  us  where  in 
Standard  English  we  would  be  used,  and  vice  versa 
(as  in  'its  didn't  know  what  would  happen  to  we,'  etc.), 
is  no  more  astonishing  than  the  now  '  correct '  use  of 
you  as  a  Nominative  Singular,  which  originally  was 
a  Dative  Plural. 

The  Scotch  '  Pll  no  can  come,'  compared  with 
Standard  English  '  I  shall  not  be  able  to  couie,''  shows 
the  use  of  *  can '  as  an  Infinitive ;  the  Scotch  and 
North  English  ' kye'  for  the  Plural  of  ' koo,'  'cow,'  is 
a  survival  of  an  old  form  which  Standard  English 
has  lost.  From  the  historical  point  of  view,  the 
received  Plural, '  cows,'  is  a  *  mistake,'  and  is  as  much 
a  departure  from  the  old  form  as  '  mouses '  instead  of 

*  mice  '  would  be. 

The  reader  can  observe  some  of  the  above 
examples  of  regional  dialectal  grammar,  and  many 
others,  according  to  the  part  of  the  country  in  which 
he  lives.     The  warning  may  be  uttered  once  more 


VARIETY  IN  COLLOQUIAL  VOCABULARY       6i 

that  Regional  dialects  are  not  bad  imitations  of 
Standard  English  in  their  grammar  any  more  than 
in  their  pronunciation.  It  is  therefore  altogether 
beside  the  mark  to  speak  of  their  grammatical 
peculiarities,  in  points  wherein  they  differ  from  the 
language  of  polite  society,  as  '  mistakes '  or  '  vul- 
garisms.' 

Differences  in  Vocabulary  and  Idiom. 

Speakers  of  Standard  English  show  great  variety 
in  these  respects.  In  the  choice  of  words  and  ex- 
pressions a  far  greater  latitude  is  permissible  than 
in  Pronunciation  or  Grammar.  There  is  much  in 
Idiom  that  is  personal  to  the  speaker,  especially 
when  conversation  passes  from  quite  trivial  and 
familiar  subjects  into  more  thoughtful  and  serious 
lines.  There  are  many  words  and  phrases  in  use 
among  the  highly  educated  and  the  learned  which 
are  not  really  in  common  use  at  all  among  ordinary 
speakers,  but  which  are  derived  from  books.  To  the 
classes  who  use  them  these  words  and  expressions 
may  be  quite  familiar  and  habitual,  but,  for  all  that, 
they  are  not  in  common  use  among  those  who  have 
nothing  to  do  with  books.  Words  and  phrases  of 
this  kind,  therefore,  cannot  be  considered  as  part  of 
ordinary,  popular,  colloquial  speech,  and  must  be 
regarded  as  belonging  to  the  special  dialect  of  the 
learned  or  literary  classes. 

Putting  aside,  therefore,  '  book  English,'  which  is 
entirely  outside  our  subject  for  the  moment,  we  must 
seek  genuine  differences  in  the  vocabulary  of  living, 
popular  speech,   only  in  the  language  of  everyday 


62  VARIOUS  FORMS  OF  ENGLISH 

life.  If  we  find  that  people  use  different  words  and 
expressions  for  things  and  ideas  which  are  familiar 
to  every  one,  then  we  may  say  that  we  have  genuine 
differences  in  the  way  of  speech. 

If  we  compare  the  differences  of  the  kind  we  are 
considering  in  the  Regional  Dialects  we  find  an 
almost  infinite  variety.  We  may  therefore  limit  our 
remarks  to  differences  which  occur  within  the  various 
forms  of  Standard  English. 

The  Regional  Dialects  influence  the  Standard  lan- 
guage in  this  respect,  perhaps,  more  than  in  any 
other  particular,  and  we  generally  find  that  the  most 
educated  and  refined  speakers,  who  live  much  in  the 
country  and  who  have  much  to  do  with  the  people 
of  the  district,  introduce,  unconsciously,  into  the 
colloquial  speech  many  words  and  expressions  from 
the  local  dialect. 

Among  the  circumstances  which  produce  variety 
in  the  vocabulary  and  idiom  of  Standard  English 
we  must  therefore  include  the  influence  of  Regional 
Dialects.  We  exclude  the  influence  of  literature 
for  the  reasons  mentioned  above,  but  we  must  re- 
member that  words  of  purely  literary  origin,  got 
from  books  or  newspapers,  and  not  from  ordinary 
conversation,  in  the  first  place,  do,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  often  find  their  way  into  popular  speech, 
and  become  permanent  elements  even  in  Regional 
Dialects. 

The  other  chief  causes  of  difference  are  Class  and 
Fashion,  Occupation,  Age,  and  even  Sex. 


SCOTCH  IDIOMS  63 

I.  Differences  in  Vocabulary,  etc.,  due  to 
Influence  of  Regional  Dialects. 

By  way  of  illustrating  this  point,  I  propose  to  take 
two  well-marked  types  of  Regional  Dialect — Scotch 
and  Irish,  meaning  in  the  latter  case  English  as 
spoken  by  the  Irish  peasantry. 

To  begin  with  Scotch,  it  is  remarkable  what 
differences  exist  between  educated  speakers  in  Scot- 
land and  those  in  this  country  in  the  commonest  and 
most  familiar  expressions. 

The  following  phrases  illustrate  this.  The  char- 
acteristic words  are  those  in  italics  : 

(i)  Scotch  Expressions  contrasted  with  English, 

English  fl  met  him  in  the  street. 
Scotch     1 1  met  him  on  the  street. 

English  fl  always  have  eggs  and  bacon  for  break- 

\     fast. 
Scotch     ll  always  get  eggs  and  bacon  to  breakfast. 

English  /Come    along    (speaking    to    a   person); 

come  here  (speaking  to  an  animal). 
Scotch      Come   away   (speaking  both  to  persons 
V     and  animals). 

English  (The  cat  wants  to  come  in. 
Scotch     (The  cafs  wanting  in. 

English  /Will  you  have  some  more,  or  do  you  want 
any  more  ?  do  you  want  some  mutton  ? 

Scotch  \  Do  you  wish  any  more  ?  do  you  wish  any 
mutton  ?  (quite  impossible  in  Eng- 
land). 


64  VARIOUS  FORMS  OF  ENGLISH 

(2)  Irish  Expressions  contrasted  with  English, 

English  f  He's  yws^/^^  the  pigs. 
Irish         iHe's  after  feeding  the  pigs. 

English  rl'm  going  into  the  next  room    (meaning 

\     one  leading  out  of  another). 
Irish         I  I'm  going  inside. 

English   \Wefeed  the  pigs  on  the  small  potatoes. 
Irish        \\Yefeed  the  small  potatoes  to  the  pigs. 

English  /I  wish  we  could  stay  in  Dubhn  for  the 

J      Horse  Show,  donH  you  ? 
Irish         1 1  wish  we  could  stay  in  Dublin  for  the 

V     Horse  Show,  wouldn't  you  ? 

In  Ireland  the  term  *  stirabont '  is  always  used 
instead  of  Scotch  and  English  'porridge.' 

2.  Differences  due  to  Class,  etc. 

Words  and  expressions  which  one  class  or  group 
of  persons  use  habitually  and  without  giving  them 
a  thought  are  held  to  be  vulgar,  or  '  bad  form,'  by 
another  group,  and  religiously  eschewed  by  them. 

Examples  of  phrases  tabooed  by  the  fashion  of 
the  moment  among  some  classes,  but  commonly 
employed  by  others,  are  not  far  to  seek. 

The  Use  of  '  Gentleman '  and  '  Lady.' — Such 
phrases  as  *  He's  a  very  nice  gentleman '  or  '  She's 
a  very  clever  lady  ' — in  fact,  the  use  of  these  words 
with  a  preceding  adjective — are  felt  by  many  to  be 
contrary  to  the  best  usage ;  while  to  say  *  Mr.  Jones 
has  had  a  bad  fall  from  his  horse,  poor  gentleman,* 
is  to  put  oneself  out  of  court  at  once.  Even  such 
a  sentence  as  '  I  met  a  good  many  gentlemen  of  my 


CLASS  IDIOMS-SCHOOLBOY  DIALECT  65 

acquaintance  '  would  be  avoided  by  a  very  large 
class  of  speakers,  who  would  substitute  for  it,  *  I 
met  a  good  many  men  (whom)  I  knew.'  In  fact,  the 
word  '  gentlemen  '  in  the  majority  of  cases  would 
not  be  used,  '  men  '  being  preferred  to  it,  and  '  lady,' 
though  more  frequently  employed,  is  very  constantly 
replaced  by  *  woman '  in  good  colloquial  English. 

The  use  of  '  the '  before  the  names  of  complaints  is 
no  longer  fashionable,  and  '  the  rheumatism,'  *  the 
indigestion,'  *  the  bronchitis,'  etc.,  would  be  counted 
vulgarisms  by  many.  Curiously  enough, '  the  measles,' 
*  the  whooping-cough,'  '  the  scarlet  fever,'  would  still 
pass  muster,  although  even  in  these  cases  the 
article  might  easily  be,  and  often  is,  omitted. 

There  seems  to  be  a  distinct  gulf  between  the 
speakers  who  say  '  /  beg  your  pardon,'  by  way  of 
apology,  and  reply,  *  Oh,  it's  all  right,'  or  '  It  doesn't 
matter,'  or  *  Please  don't  mention  it,'  and  those 
who  say  *  Beg  pardon,'  omitting  the  pronouns,  and 
expect  the  answer,  '  Granted.' 

The  language  of  schoolboys  presents  many  good 
examples  of  a  class  dialect.  There  are  words  and 
turns  of  phrase  which  are  common  to  all  schoolboys ; 
there  are  also  others  which  are  confined  to  particular 
schools.  Most  large  schools  possess  more  or  less 
extensive  lists  of  words  which  appear  to  be  peculiar 
to  themselves.  The  use  of  these  is  imposed  by  that 
most  rigid  of  unwritten  laws — schoolboy  custom. 
Just  as  the  use  of  certain  words  is  essential,  the 
abstention  from  others  is  as  strongly  enforced. 

At  Charterhouse,  twenty  years  ago  (and  probably 
this  is  still  the  case),  there  were  words  which  no  boy 
in  the  School  ever  pronounced,  constructions  which 

5 


66  VARIOUS  FORMS  OF  ENGLISH 

he  never  dreamt  of  using.  The  following  are  a  few 
of  these:  ^  Cake'  was  never  used,  but  always  'he'; 

*  bun '  was  tabooed,  and  '  stodger '  took  its  place ; 
'pater,'  a  very  general  term  amongst  boys,  was  not 
allowed,  but  only  'governor';  the  definite  article 
was  never  employed  when  speaking  of  things  or 
institutions  connected  with  the  School — boys  always 
said  '  School,'  '  Class-room,'  '  Library,'  '  Chapel,' 
'  Baths,'  '  Green,'  '  Long-room '  (the  room  in  each 
house  where  the  boys  lived)  ;  '  Flogging '  or  'Birching ' 
was  unknown,  this  invigorating  process  being  known 
only    as    '  Swishing  ' ;     the    common    abbreviation 

*  Prep  '  for  evening  preparation  was  never  heard,  the 
proper  term  being  '  Banco ' ;  the  operation  of 
thrashing,  as  administered  by  a  Monitor,  was  desig- 
nated '  Cocking  lip.'  A  curious  word  to  express  what 
other  schools  call  *  cheeky  '  was  '  Festive.'  This  word 
and  the  substantive  '  Festivity '  implied  rather  more 
than  '  cheeky,  cheek,'  and  included,  among  several 
objectionable  qualities,  especially  the  possession  of  a 
greater  degree  of  self-assertion  than  a  boy's  standing, 
from  his  place  in  the  School,  and  the  length  of  time 
he  had  been  there,  or  his  achievement  in  sports,  were 
held  to  warrant,  The  word  '  check  '  would  not  have 
been  tolerated. 

The  compulsory  use  of  certain  words  in  a  school, 
to  the  exclusion  of  others,  is,  of  course,  an  artificial 
process,  but  it  closely  resembles  that  selection  of 
a  particular  vocabulary  which,  in  maturer  life, 
is  dictated  by  fashion,  or  '  Good  Form,'  in  a  given 
social  set  or  class. 


OLD-FASHIONED  COLLOQUIALISMS  67 

3.  Difference  of  Age  occasions  Differences  in 
Vocabulary,  etc. 

We  have  seen  that  there  are  modes  of  pronuncia- 
tion which  become  old-fashioned ;  so,  also,  phrase 
and  idiom  in  colloquial  speech  pass  out  of  fashion, 
and  are  given  up.  Fashion  in  this  respect  changes 
much  more  rapidly  in  racy,  familiar  language,  than 
does  pronunciation.  The  young  may  sometimes  notice 
that  their  elders  use  words — not  grand,  learned 
words,  but  colloquial,  even  slang  words — which  they 
themselves  would  never  dream  of  employing.  Such 
are — 'to  hand  a  lady  out,'  instead  of  'to  take  her  in  ' 
(to  dinner,  etc.);  *to  qtciz,'  instead  of  'to  chaff';  'a 
chimney-pot  hat,'  instead  of  '  top-hat' ;  ^cravat,'  instead 
of  '  tie' ;  '  surtout,'  instead  of  'frock-coat' ;  '  wristband,' 
instead  of  ^  cuff' ;  'to  drink  tea,'  instead  of  'have  tea,' 
or  '  come  to  tea ' ;  'to  take  wine  with  '  some  one,  instead 
of  '  to  drink  his  health,'  and  so  on. 

The  list  might  be  extended  indefinitely.  Observant 
young  people  may  have  noted  such  things  as  these, 
but  what  is,  perhaps,  more  frequently  brought  to 
their  notice  is  that,  when  speaking  to  an  old 
person,  they  are  reprimanded  for  using  some  ex- 
pression which  is  an  indispensable  part  of  the  con- 
versational style  of  the  day.  Thus,  the  use  of  '  awful,' 
'  awfully,'  not  rarely  calls  forth  the  censure  of  the 
aged,  who  do  not  understand  that  to  persons  under 
sixty,  and  to  some  much  older,  if  they  live  much 
among  the  young,  '  awfully '  before  an  adjective  is  as 
colourless  as  '  very.'  '  Infamous  '  is  another  word  which 
shocks  old  people,  who  consider  it  a  ridiculously 
strong  term  as  it  is  commonly  applied  nowadays. 

5—2 


68  VARIOUS  FORMS  OF  ENGLISH 

Yet  it  simply  means  '  very  bad '  when  used  of  things, 
and  when  apphed  to  persons,  it  frequently  has  abso- 
lutely no  meaning  at  all,  and  implies  no  disapproval 
of  him  on  whom  it  is  bestowed.  'Decent'  is  now  a 
very  frequent  term  of  praise,  both  of  a  hearty,  as  well 
as  of  a  faint,  and  non-committal  kind.  Old  people, 
taking  the  word  only  in  its  literal  sense,  fail  to 
understand  why  it  should  be  applied  equally  to  a 
man,  a  dinner,  a  horse,  a  game,  a  sermon,  or  a  play. 

4.  Difference  of  Sex  associated  with  Differences 
of  Vocabulary. 

Just  as  there  are  many  words  and  expressions, 
commonly  used  by  men,  which  women  avoid,  or 
formerly  did  so,  as  being  too  forcible  or  too  slangy, 
so  there  are  also  others  which  men  seldom  or  never 
make  use  of.  The  advance  of  female  education  has 
greatly  reduced  the  number  of  the  former.  Of  the 
latter,  such  words  as  'poorly'  (for  ill),  'tiresome,' 
'  enjoyable,'  and  such  phrases  as  '  sweetly  pretty,'  '  very, 
very  hot,'  '  dear,  dear  /'  '  oh,  bother  /'  are  examples. 

We  have  now  described  and  illustrated  the  chief 
circumstances  which  account  for  the  considerable 
diversity  which  exists  in  English  as  spoken  at  the 
present  time.  The  fact  of  the  existence  of  these 
differences  has  a  most  important  bearing,  not  only 
upon  the  question  of  the  development  of  our  language, 
but  also  upon  the  view  which  we  shall  take  of  the 
nature  and  habits  of  a  living  tongue.  It  should  be 
noted  that  we  have  awarded,  as  a  rule,  neither 
censure  nor  praise  to  this  or  that  variety  of  English, 


THE  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  OBSERVER  69 

We  have  been  content  merely  to  attempt  to  show 
that  variety  exists,  and  to  help  the  reader  to  know 
what  he  may  observe  for  himself.  Our  attitude  to 
forms  of  English  which  differ  from  our  own  should, 
in  the  first  instance,  be  merely  one  of  curiosity. 
We  collect  varieties  in  speech,  as  ^n  entomologist 
brings  together  different  kinds  of  moths.  We  do 
not  love  the  one  and  despise  the  other :  we  simply 
observe  and  compare  them. 


CHAPTER  VI 

SOUND  CHANGES  OBSERVABLE  IN  PRESENT- 
DAY  ENGLISH 

A.  Changes  due  to  Tendencies  in  Operation  at 
the  Present  Time. 

I.  Sounds  in  Combination. 

We  have  already  pointed  out,  in  dealing  with  the 
principal  facts  of  English  pronunciation  (pp.  37-38), 
that  sounds  are  liable  to  be  altered,  in  natural  speech, 
according  to  two  main  principles — (i)  the  influence  of 
other  sounds  which  occur  in  the  same  word,  or  breath- 
group  (see  pp.  25,  37-40) ;  and  (2)  according  to  the 
amount  of  stress,  or  emphasis,  which  falls  upon  the 
syllable  in  which  they  occur.  The  alteration  of  sounds 
by  these  two  means  is  known  as  Combinative  Change^ 
because  it  happens  to  sounds  when  they  occur  in 
combination  with  other  sounds.  Such  influence, 
exerted  by  one  sound  upon  another,  or  by  stress,  is 
known  as  Combinative  Influence. 

An  important  point  in  connexion  with  the  changes 
we  are  about  to  consider  is  emphasized  in  the  head- 
line above  this  section — namely,  that  they  take  place 
in  English  speech  at  the  present  time,  and  are  such 

70 


COMBINATIVE  CHANGES  IN  SPOKEN  ENGLISH   71 

as  most  people  tend  to,  naturally,  and  unconsciously, 
in  speaking,  when  the  necessary  conditions  are 
present. 

Some  of  the  examples  which  follow  have  already 
been  mentioned  by  way  of  illustrating  the  general 
principle.  We  shall  now  group  the  examples  more 
systematically  into  classes,  our  chief  object  at  present 
being  to  direct  attention  to  some  of  the  tendencies 
to  Combinative  Change  which  are  observable  in  the 
English  which  we  speak  and  hear  day  by  day. 

(a)  Influence  of  Sound  upon  Sound — (i)  Voicing 
and  Unvoicing, — Voicing  of  voiceless  consonants  after 
another  voiced  consonant  or  a  vowel :  s  of  plural 
or  of  possessive  case  pronounced  like  z  —  dog-5, 
web-s,  eggs,  foes,  eyes,  play-s,  compared  with  hat-s, 
cap-s  trick-s;  -ed  of  past  tense,  or  past  participle, 
pronounced  as  t — tipp-ed,  tvRck-ed,  qusiff-ed. 

(2)  Unvoicing,  accompanied  by  Another  Change. — 
In  the  combination  t,  followed  byjy-sound,  the  latter 
is  unvoiced  and  also  becomes  sh- :  '  Did  it  hit  you  ?' 
(*  hit  you '  becomes  '  hitchu '  in  rapid  speech)  ; 
crea^wre,  fea^Mre  (formerly  pronounced  kreetyure, 
feetyiire,  now  with  the  '  cA-sound,'  that  is,  t  and  sh). 
Similarly,  in  such  combinations  as  *  me^  you,'  '  Is 
t\id,t you  ?'  '  I  be^^you  anything,'  etc.,  the  t  and 3;  tend 
to  pass  into  -tch-, 

(3)  The  ^-sound  followed  by  j^-sound  passes  into 
the  sound  heard  initially  in  French  jamais,  and  finally 
in  French  rouge :  '  I  didn't  come  to  praise  you,' 
'please  jyourself;  the  same  sound  is  also  heard  in 
*  pleasure,'  'a^ure,'  'leisure.' 

(4)  In  the  combination  71  and  g,  n  tends  to  become 
ng :  *  He  was  drowned  in  going  to  save  his  brother  ' 


72  SOUND  CHANGES  IN   PRESENT-DAY  ENGLISH 

(the  '  in '   in   such  a   sentence  is  often  pronounced 

*  ing  '  by  careless  speakers. 

(5)  In  the  combination  n  before  p,  h,  f,  or  v,  n 
often  becomes  m :  '  O;^  payment,'  '  011  board  '  (pro- 
nounced '  om  '  in  both  cases) ;  '  m  fact,'  '  in  vain  ' 
(pronounced  *  im  '  in  each  case). 

(6)  Consonant  differently  pronounced  according 
to  the  vowel  which  follows.  Contrast  the  ^-sound 
in  *  ^een,'  *  ^ick,'  *  iCate,'  etc.,  with  that  in  '  cone,' 

*  cart,'  '  cut,'  '  caught,'  *  cool,'  etc. 

(7)  Vowel  differently  pronounced  according  to 
whether  it  is  followed  by  another  vowel  or  by  a 
consonant.  Contrast  the  vowel  naturally  uttered  in 
'  the  eye,'  '  the  ear,'  '  the  arm,'  etc.,  with  that  heard 
in  *thc  nose,'  *  the  leg,'  'the  mouth,'  etc. 

(8)  Consonant  lost  or  retained  according  to 
w^hether  a  consonant  or  vowel  follows,  r  is  not 
heard  in  'far  be  it  from  me,'  *pure  nonsense,'  'for 
me,'  etc.,  before  another  consonant,  nor  finally  in  '  Is  it 
far  ?'  '  The  water's  quite  pure,'  '  What's  it  for  ?'  but 
it  is  heard  in  the  same  words  when  the  following 
word  begins  with  a  vowel,  as  :  '  far  away,'  '  pure 
air,'  *  for  ever.' 

It  should  be  noted  that  it  in  no  way  affects  the 
point  at  issue  if  some  of  the  pronunciations  just 
described  are  considered  by  some  people  to  be 
'  incorrect,'  '  slovenly,'  or  '  careless.'  We  are  not 
now  setting  up  a  standard  of  elegance  of  speech,  but 
are  indicating  what  actually  does  take  place  in 
English  pronunciation  in  the  unstudied  language 
of  thousands,  if  not  millions,  of  persons.  Even  if 
the    pronunciations    described    were    one    and    all 

*  vulgar,'  which  they  certainly  are  not,  provided  that 


INFLUENCE  OF  STRESS  ON  PRONUNCIATION  73 

they  actually  occur,  which  they  certainly  do,  they 
would  be  just  as  instructive  as  if  they  were  the 
height  of  refinement.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  most 
fastidious  speakers,  when  they  are  off  their  guard, 
are  '  guilty '  of  many  of  those  very  combinative 
changes  in  pronunciation  which  they  condemn 
theoretically.  For  the  moment,  no  judgment,  for  > 
good  or  ill,  is  pronounced  on  any  possible  mode  of 
English  speech. 

{b)  Influence  of  the  Presence  or  Absence  of 
Stress  upon  English  Sounds. — (i)  Double  forms 
of  prepositions,  and  auxiliary  verbs  resulting  from 
strong  and  weak  stress.  (See  short  list  of  these  given, 
pp.  39-40  above.) 

(2)  Loss  of  the  initial  aspirate  of  pronouns  {he,  his, 
him,  her)  in  rapid  consecutive  speech,  in  sentences 
where  these  words  do  not  receive  stress.  Contrast 
'  I  told  him  hed  better  come  and  see  you  '—where 

*  him  '  and  *  he,'  being  unstressed,  have  either  a  very 
weak  aspirate,  or  none  at  all — with  the  pronuncia- 
tion of  the  above  pronouns  as  isolated  words,  when 
they  always  retain  the  aspirate,  or  with  such  a 
sentence  as,  '  It  doesn't  matter  who  is  absent,  if  only 
he  is  there  ;  his  presence  is  most  important,'  where 
the  strong  emphatic  stress  maintains  the  aspirate. 

(3)  Vowels  in  pronouns,  *  you  '  *  he,'  'we,'  'she,' 
altered  according  to  whether  they  have  strong  or 
weak  stress  in,  the  sentence.  The  vowel  in  'you'  is 
that  of  '  pool '  when  stressed ;  that  of  *  pwll '  when 
unstressed ;  the  vowel  of  '  he,'  '  we,'  etc.,  is  that  of 

*  fr^^ '  when  stressed,  that  of  *  hit '  when  unstressed. 
(See  notes  on  these  sounds,  p.  32  above.) 

(4)  The  vowel    in  the  second  element  of  a  com- 


74   SOUND  CHANGES  IN  PRESENT-DAY  ENGLISH 

pound  is  often  different  from  that  of  the  simple 
word,  through  absence  of  stress  in  the  former  case. 
Compare  the  sound  in  *  man '  with  that  in  *  gentle- 
man,' '  Frenchman,'  and  that  in  *  m^n  '  with  the 
vowel  of  'gentleman,'  etc. ;  the  vowel  in  *  ford  '  with 
that  in  the  second  syllable  of  '  Oxford,'  etc. 

The  above  examples  in  I.  (a)  and  (6)  are  intended 
to  illustrate  some  of  the  chief  processes  of  combinative 
sound  change  which  take  place  at  the  present  day. 
Many  other  examples  of  a  similar  character  may  be 
observed  by  the  student  for  himself,  and  these  should 
be  carefully  collected, 

II.  IsoLATivE  Sound  Changes  in  Present-day 
English. 

Besides  sound  changes  which  are  due  to  the 
influence  of  other  sounds,  or  of  stress,  there  is 
another  class  which  is  equally  interesting  and  im- 
portant. In  the  course  of  time  the  pronunciation  of 
a  language  undergoes  changes  which  appear  to  arise 
and  develop  in  certain  sounds  ;  so  far  as  we  can  tell, 
without  the  influence  of  surrounding  sounds,  or  of 
stress,  the  changes  are  due  to  a  natural  and  spon- 
taneous tendency  on  the  part  of  the  speakers  of 
the  language  to  pronounce  the  old  sounds  in  a  new 
way.  This  class  of  independent  sound  changes  are 
known  as  Isolative  Changes.  The  new  pronunciation 
comes  about  so  gradually  that  even  those  who  live  a 
great  many  years  are  unaware  that  their  own  speech, 
and  that  of  those  around  them,  is  changing.  They 
are,  as  a  rule,  unable  to  compare  the  speech  current 
in  their  boyhood  with  that  of  their  old  age. 

We  have  already  noted  (p.  56)  that  the  speech 
of  very  old  people  often  presents  some  perceptible 


HISTORY  OF  LANGUAGE  IN  ACTUAL  PROCESS  75 

differences,  to  the  ear  of  the  careful  observer,  from 
that  of  the  young  and  rising  generation. 

The  examples  given  above  to  illustrate  this,  how- 
ever, were  not  really  of  the  nature  of  actual  change 
of  sound,  but  only  of  a  different  distribution  of  the 
same  sounds. 

It  now  remains  to  inquire  whether  it  is  possible  to 
discover  in  the  speech  of  the  rising  generation  of  the 
present  day — of  people,  that  is,  of  from  ten  to  twenty  ; 
years  of  age  —  any  appreciable  differences  of  pro- 
nunciation, any  tendencies  towards  altogether  new 
sounds,  compared  with  the  manner  of  speech  of 
persons  of  the  same  education  and  class  who  belong 
to  an  earlier  generation — persons,  that  is  to  say, 
between  thirty-five  and  fifty-five  at  the  present  time. 

Considering  the  question  from  the  point  of  view 
of  the  latter  class,  I  can  perceive  tendencies  in  the 
younger  generation  which  are  either  lacking  in  my 
own  speech,  or  so  little  developed  as  to  be  inap- 
preciable. On  the  other  hand,  I  am  conscious  of 
sharing,  to  some  shght  extent,  tendencies  of  change 
and  modes  of  pronunciation  with  the  younger  genera- 
tion, which  I  am  unable  to  trace  in  the  English  of 
persons  twenty  or  thirty  years  older  than  myself. 
These  peculiarities  include  both  actual  differences  of 
sound  and  different  distribution  of  the  same  sounds. 
(On  this  distinction,  see  pp.  50-54  above.)  The  mere 
differences  of  habit  in  the  use  of  sounds  in  certain 
words  are  easy  to  note.  The  new  tendencies  towards 
a  different  series  of  sounds — that  is,  an  actual  modi- 
fication of  the  sounds  of  the  older  generation— are 
far  more  difficult  to  fix,  and  more  difficult  to  describe 
in  a  popular  treatise  like  the  present,  in  which  it 


76    SOUND  CHANGES  IN  PRESENT-DAY  ENGLISH 

would  be  absurd  to  assume  an  exact  acquaintance 
with  scientific  Phonetics  on  the  part  of  those  for 
whom  it  is  primarily  intended.  At  the  same  time, 
the  whole  question  is  so  important,  since  it  involves 
catching  English  pronunciation  in  the  very  act  of 
changing — that  is,  in  the  act  of  making  part  of  its 
history — that  an  attempt  must  be  made,  with  the 
imperfect  means  at  our  disposal  for  such  an  exposi- 
tion, to  give  some  indication  of  the  changes  and 
tendencies  in  question. 

If  we  can  indicate  in  what  directions  the  points 
for  observation  lie,  the  intelligent  student  will  be 
on  the  alert,  and  personal  observation  will  soon  give 
definiteness  to  his  ideas.  The  following  remarks 
apply  only  to  the  Standard  form  of  English,  and  in 
no  way  to  the  speech  of  those  who  are  definitely 
influenced  by  Regional  Dialects.  On  the  conception 
of  Standard  English,  and  of  Regional  Dialects,  see 
pp.  46-49  above. 

Examples  of  Isolative  Changes  in  Progress  at  the 

the  Present  Time. 
I.  Loss  of  Vowel  Murmur. — (See  notes  on  pp.  32- 
33j  35  (/)j  36  fe)j  etc.,  above.)  The  combinations  -ore^ 
-our,  -or-,  and  war-,  followed  by  another  consonant, 
are  still  pronounced  by  many  with  the  aw-soMnd  (as 
in  saw),  followed  by  the  vowel  murmur.  Probably 
this  pronunciation  is  already  distinctly  old-fashioned 
(when  not  a  provincialism)  before  consonants — that 
is,  in  words  like  'fourth,'  'forth,'  'ford,'  'sword,'  'port,' 
'  warp,'  etc.  In  such  cases  the  usual  pronunciation  of 
people  of,  say,  from  thirty  to  fifty  3^ears  of  age,  and, 
of  course,   of  the  younger  generation,  seems  to   be 


simply  '  awd,'  etc.,  without  any  vowel  murmur  before 
the  consonant.  Thus,  no  difference  is  made  between 
'  sword  '  and  *  sawed,'  '  Lord  '  and  '  Laud,'  '  drawers  ' 
and  '  draws,'  and  so  on.  This  is  to  a  certain  extent 
a  combinative  change. 

But  many  people  whose  pronunciation  has  lost 
the  vowel  murmur  in  the  above  cases  still  retain  it 
in  cases  where  no  consonant  follows,  as  in  ^ pour,' 
'  war,'  'floor,'  'core,'  etc.  Now,  the  younger  genera- 
tion (and  many  persons  of  middle  age  also)  pro- 
nounce no  vowel  murmur  in  these  cases  any  more 
than  in  the  former,  but  pronounce  pour  like  paw^ 
floor  like  flaw,  core  like  caw,  sore  and  soar  like  saw^ 
and  so  on. 

2.  Loss  of  Vowel  Murmur,  and  Alteration  of 
Preceding  Vowel. — The  combinations  -ure,  -ur,  a 
vowel  sound,  as  in  sure,  pure,  cure,  endtire,  fury,  etc., 
are  pronounced  by  the  older  generation  like  '  sewer ' 
(or  'shewer '),  'pewer,'  'feweri,'  etc. ;  that  is,  the  -ur  has 
a  sound  like  the  word  you,  followed  by  the  vowel 
murmur.  The  pronunciation  of  the  middle  and 
younger  generations  is  simply  the  aw-soMnd.,  with 
no  murmur  after  it,  and  the  sound  of  y  (as  in  yacht) 
before  it,  which  might  be  roughly  expressed  by 
'yaw  ' — thus,  ' pyaw,'  '  kyaw,'  ' fyawry,'  etc.  Note 
that  the  new  pronunciation  'shaw,'  for  sure,  shows 
also  a  combinative  change  of  '  sy  '  to  '  sh '  {cf.  p.  29 
above). 

3.  Loss  of  r  between  Vowels.  —  Although  this 
sound  has  long  been  lost,  in  Standard  English, 
before  consonants  (see  p.  31  above),  it  is  retained  by 
most  speakers  of  thirty  and  upwards,  in  the  middle 
of  words  before  vowels  and  at  the  end  of  words,  in 


78    SOUND  CHANGES  IN   PRESENT-DAY  ENGLISH 

sentences  where  the  next  word  begins  with  a  vowel 
(see  p.  72  (8)  above). 

Now,  there  appears  to  be  a  well  -  established 
tendency  among  the  younger  generation  to  omit  r 
(i)  in  phrases  like  'for  ever,'  '  I'm  sur^  of  it'  (pro- 
nounced '  shaw  of  it '),  '  ther^  are  plenty,'  *  far  away,' 
'  four  apples'  (  =  *  iaw  apples'),  and  so  on.  But  the 
r-  sound  is  not  only  disappearing  at  the  end  of  words 
before  the  vowel  of  the  next,  but  the  tendency  is 
being  extended  (2)  to  r  between  vowels  in  the  middle 
of  words.  The  result  is  that  quite  young  people  tend 
to  omit  the  sound  in  words  like  '  fury  '  (pronounced 
'  fyaw-y  '),  *  fa/ry,'  '  fiery,'  '  pouring  '  (pronounced 
*paw-ing'),  'Victoria'  (pronounced  'Victawya'),  etc. 
So  far,  the  present  writer  has  rarely  heard  the  r  dropped 
between  vowels  in  the  middle  of  words,  except  in 
cases  where  the  sound  immediately  preceding  the  r 
was  either  a  long  vowel  or  a  diphthong.  Doubtless 
in  time  the  tendency  will  also  spread  to  words  where 
the  first  vowel  is  short,  such  as  'very,'  'Harry,' 
*  hurry.'  It  should  be  said  that  the  disappearance 
of  r  seems  to  be  further  advanced  in  cases  belonging 
to  (i)  above  than  in  (2). 

This  tendency  seems  directly  opposed  to  that  of 
an  earlier  generation  of  speakers  to  develop  an  r- 
sound,  to  avoid  hiatus,  when  two  vowels  occurred 
together,  and  to  say  '  put  your  umbrella-r-up,'  '  the 
idea-r-of  it,'  *  Victoria-r-our  Queen,'  and  '  drawring  ' 
for  '  drawing,'  etc. 

4.  Loss  of  Second  Element  of  Diphthong  before 
a  Murmur  Vowel.— (i)  Words  like  '  f/re,'  '  h/gher,' 
'si're,''  przor,'  '  ?ron,'  contain  in  the  pronunciation 
of  the  older  and  part  of  the  middle  generation  the 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  MURMUR  VOWEL         79 

diphthong  popularly  known  as  *  long  i '  (see  p.  35  {e) 
above),  followed  by  the  murmur  vowel.  The  new 
tendency  is  to  suppress  the  second  element  (the 
'  i  '-sound,  as  in  '■  it ')  before  the  murmur  vowel.  The 
result  is  that  instead  of  'long  i,'  followed  by  the 
murmur  vowel,  we  get  simply  a  shortened  form  of 
the  first  vowel  in  'father,'  followed  by  the  murmur. 
Thus,  instead  of  the  older  *fl-er,*  we  get  *fd-er,' 
which  differs  from  'far '  only  in  having  a  final 
murmur  after  the  a.  Taking  this  in  conjunction 
with  what  has  been  said  in  the  preceding  para- 
graph (3),  we  see  that  instead  of  '  ji-er-i  '  (with  the 
r-sound  pronounced)  for  'fiery,'  the  pronunciation 
of  the  younger  generation  is  ^ fci-e{r)-y,'  with  no 
r-sound  and  no  z-sound  in  the  first  syllable.  The 
other  z-diphthong  (see  p.  35  {d)  above)  tends  in  the 
same  direction  before  the  murmur  vowel.  Thus,  the 
pronunciation  of  'prayer '  so  as  to  rhyme  with  'cave,' 
and  of  '  layer '  so  that  it  is  identical  with  '  lair,"  is 
already  well  established  among  the  middle  genera- 
tion. Now,  however,  such  words  as  '  player,'  '  be- 
trayer,'' are  following  in  the  same  path.* 

(2)  The  t^diphthongs  (see  p.  34  (a)  and  {h)  above) 
similarly  lose  the  ^-element  before  the  murmur  vowel. 
Such  words  as  'slower,'  'goer,'  'lower,'  'rower,'  etc., 
tend  to  become  almost  *  raw-er,'  '  law-er,'  etc.  In  this 
case  the  first  and  remaining  element  of  the  diph- 
thong undergoes  modification.  The  same  process 
involves  the  o«-diphthong  (as  in  '  house,'  etc.). 

■^  For  many  speakers,  the  simple  words  *  betray,'  ^ play,'  in- 
fluence the  pronunciation  of  '  bciray-er,'  '  play-Qv,'  so  that  the 
-ay  ('  \ong-a ')  preserves  its  full  sound  before  the  murmur 
vowel  in  these  and  similar  words. 


8o    SOUND  CHANGES  IN  PRESENT-DAY  ENGLISH 

The  diphthong  is  no  longer  clearly  heard,  among 
the  younger  generation,  in  such  words  as  ^ power,' 
^shower,'  ^  flour'  and  ^flower,'  ^  tower,"  etc.  It  would 
seem  that  what  happens  in  these  words  is  that 
the  first  element  of  the  diphthong  is  very  slightly 
lengthened,  and  then,  in  place  of  the  full  «-sound 
of  the  second  element,  only  a  very  slight  bringing 
together  of  the  lips  takes  place,  which  is  instantly 
removed,  and  finally  comes  the  murmur  vowel.  It 
is  this  slight  and  momentary  action  of  the  lips  which 
alone  appears  to  distinguish  *  tower '  from  '  tire '  in 
the  new  pronunciation,  while  '  tar '  is  distinguished 
from  both  by  the  absence  of  any  vowel  murmur  and 
the  greater  length  of  the  vowel  a.  If  this  tendency 
continues,  one  would  expect  that  at  last  the  murmur 
itself  would  vanish,  thus  leaving  no  distinction 
between  '  tire '  and  '  tar,'  Later  still,  possibly  the 
lip-action  in  *  tower,'  etc.,  will  disappear,  levelling  it 
with  the  present  Hire,'  and  with  the  subsequent  loss 
of  the  final  vowel  murmur,  *  ho^lr  '  and  *  tower  '  will 
be  completely  levelled  under  *  are '  and  *  tar,'  together 
with  '  ire  '  and  '  tire' 

5.  The  substitution  of  -n'  for  -ng  has  already  been 
discussed  (p.  54  above). 

6.  The  spread  of  the  aw-sound  to  many  words 
which  formerly  had  the  '  short  0'  sound,  as  in  'not,' 
seems  to  be  typical  of  the  pronunciation  of  the 
younger  generation.  (For  the  class  of  words  referred 
to,  see  p.  53  above.) 

7.  Change  in  the  'u'  sound  in  'p^rt,'  'good,' 
'shoveld,'  etc. — There  appears  to  be  a  distinct 
tendency  to  '  unround '  this  vowel.  (For  explana- 
tion of  term,  see  p.  22  above.)     It  is  impossible  to 


SURVIVALS  OF  OLD  CHANGES  8i 

describe  the  process  or  the  resultant  sound  without 
a  proper  phonetic  terminology,  but  to  make  the 
matter  clear  to  those  who  are  not  yet  trained  in 
Phonetics,  we  may  say  that  the  new  tendency  is 
apparently  in  the  direction  of  the  sound  in  'hut.' 
The  new  sound  is  far  from  having  reached  the 
sound  of  *  hut '  as  yet,  but  if  the  tendency  really 
gains  ground,  and  progresses,  that  is  the  sound 
which  we  may  expect  to  hear  fifty  years  hence  as  the 
regular  received  pronunciation.  If  the  reader  wishes 
to  compare  the  old  and  new  sounds,  he  should 
confront  a  man  of  upwards  of  fifty  with  a  youth 
between  fifteen  and  twenty-five,  and  by  listening  to 
their  alternate  utterances  of  such  words  as  those 
given  in  the  heading  of  this  paragraph  he  will 
probably  perceive  the  difference. 

B.  Sound  Differences  in  Closely  Related  Words 
in  Present-day  English  which  are  not  due 
to  Tendencies  now  in  Operation. 

There  are  in  Present-day  English  many  pairs,  and 
also  whole  groups,  of  words  which,  although  very 
similar,  if  not  identical,  in  meaning,  and  sufficiently 
alike  in  form  to  suggest  some  kind  of  relationship, 
are  yet  distinguished  by  certain  differences  in  their 
vowel  or  consonant  sounds,  or  in  both. 

The  differences  in  the  words  referred  to  cannot 
be  explained  by  any  tendency  to,  or  process  of 
sound  change,  now  active,  which  affects  some  of 
these  words  and  not  others,  and  thus  causes  the 
differences  between  them.  Nothing  in  Modern 
English  can  produce  these  differences,  and  we  shall 

6 


> 


82    SOUND  CHANGES  IN  PRESENT-DAY  ENGLISH 

therefore,  for  the  present,  not  attempt  to  explain  the 
differences  of  form,  but  shall  merely  enumerate  a 
considerable  number  of  such  pairs  or  groups  of 
words,  most  of  which  will  be  perfectly  familiar  to 
the  reader,  although  in  some  cases  he  may  not 
have  thought  of  the  relationship. 

(a)  Differences  affecting  Vowel  Sounds  —  (i) 
Differences  primarily  dependent  upon  Alterations  of 
Quantity. — Breathe  —  breath  ;  child — children;  defile — 
fi.lth  ;  one  —an  ;  leap — leapt ;  doom — king-dom ;  Kings- 
town  (in  Ireland) — Kings^o;^ -on- Thames  ;  wide  — 
width  ;  lea — Beck-ley,  etc. ;  white — Whit-hy  ;  south — 
southern  \  goose — gosling  ;  sheep — sA^/-herd  ;  howse — 
hi^ssy  (huzzif) ;  otct — utmost ;  street — S/r^/-ford. 

(2)  Differences  involving  primarily  Alteration  in  the 
Quality  or  Nature  of  the  Vowel. — (a)  Cow  —  kine  ; 
drought — dry;  mouse — mice;  thought — think;  louse — 
lice  ;  foul — de-file ;  foot — feet ;  doom — deem ;  goose — 
geese  ;  food — feed  ;  brother — brethren ;  taught — teach  ; 
sought — seek,  he-seech  ;  hot  —  heat ;  broad  —  breadth  ; 
blood — bleed;  lode-  (stone,  star,  etc.) — lead;  dole— deal; 
gold — gild ;  fox — vixen  ;  full— fill ;  thumb — thimble ; 
bond — bend;  whole  —  heal;  borough  —  Bury;  bought 
— buy  ;  broom — bramble. 

(/3)  Cool — cold;  cock — chick;  bite— bitter ;  water- 
wet;  sit — sat — seat — set  (p.  197);  field — fold;  bind — 
band— bound ;  bear — bier — bore ;  ride — rode  and  road ; 
freeze— froze ;  brought — bring;  stock — stack;  blind — 
blend. 

(b)  Differences  affecting  the  Consonants. — Care 
— cheer;  cool  and- cold — c//ill ;  cock — c/;ick;  coo/c — 
ki/c//-en  ;  see^^  —  he-seech ;  li/cc  —  lycA-gate  ;  hano^ — 
hinge;  drinA; — drencA;  stin^ — stench;  banA; — hench ; 


VARIANTS  OF  THE  SAME  ROOT  83 

thin^ — thought;  seek — sought;  brin^ — brought;  wife 
—  wives  ;  life  —  lives  ;  brea^/j  —  hxeddhe  ;  south  — 
southern  ;  of — off ;  is — are? ;  was — were  ;  lose — lorn^ 
and  for-lom;  ixeeze — ivore  (obsolete  for  frozen); 
draw — drajy;  slaw^Mer — slaj;;  dd^wn — dajy;  la_y  and  lie 
— ledge;  fly — fled^^  ;  might — mam;  blight — blain. 

All  the  words  in  the  above  lists  which  are  con- 
nected by  a  stroke  are  historically  and  etymo- 
logically  related — that  is,  the  various  forms  go  back 
to  one  original  form.  The_  variety  of  development 
which  one  original  '  root '  or  '  base  '  has  undergone 
in  the  course  of  time  is  the  result  of  different 
Combinative  influences.  None  of  the  above  varieties 
are  due  to  forces  now  at  work  in  English.  The 
causes  of  the  differences,  which  are  of  various  nature, 
and  belong  to  different  periods  of  the  language,  have 
long  since  ceased  to  exist.  We  see,  however,  that 
the  results  remain.  It  should  be  noted  that  these 
differences  occur,  not  only  in  what  are  known  as 
different  parts  of  the  same  verb,  or  between  the 
singular  and  plural  of  the  same  noun,  but  often,  also, 
in  words,  closely  related  in  meaning,  it  is  true  (such 
as  gold — gild),  but  now  quite  independent  words 
representing  different  parts  of  speech.  The  explana- 
tion of  these  changes,  as  we  have  said,  is  to  be  found 
in  the  remote  past  history  of  English.  The  student 
should  bear  in  mind  that  some  of  the  Combinative 
influences  which  we  have  noted  as  occurring  in 
activity  at  the  present  day  are  tending  to  alter  the 
forms  of  words  just  as  similar  forces  have  done  in 
the  past. 

The  student  should  also  try  to  collect  other  relics 
of  past  changes  in  Present-day  English. 

6—2 


CHAPTER  VII 

SPEAKING  AND  WRITINCx 

We  have  already  pointed  out,  in  the  first  chapter  of 
this  book,  that  originally  the  written  language  is 
merely  a  reproduction,  in  another  form,  of  the  spoken 
language. 

When  men  first  began  to  use  written  symbols  of 
an  alphabetic  kind,  all  they  could  do  was  to  make  as 
faithful  an  expression  as  was  possible  by  this  means 
of  the  language  which  they  spoke. 

Thus,  the  symbols  of  the  alphabet,  each  endowed 
with  a  phonetic  value,  were  used  to  represent,  as 
closely  as  their  nature  would  permit,  the  sounds 
which  occurred  in  the  speech  of  him  who  traced  them. 
Similarly,  the  general  structure  of  the  sentences,  the 
words  and  expressions  used — in  a  word,  the  Style  of 
ordinary  spoken  English — were  simply  set  down  in 
writing.  In  the  beginnings  of  prose  writing  the 
differences  which  we  now  observe  between  the 
language  of  literature  and  that  of  ordinary  life  did 
not  exist. 

It  is  true  that  most  races  develop  song  and 
poetry,  which  is  learnt  by  heart,  and  handed  on  by 
word  of  mouth,  long  before  they  have  learnt  the  art 
of  writing. 

84. 


RISE  OF  WRITTEN  LANGUAGE  85 

The  language  of  this,  as  of  all  poetry,  would  differ 
in  several  ways  from  ordinary  colloquial  speech. 
For  one  thing,  it  was  in  metre,  and  for  another,  it 
would  necessarily  soon  become  archaic — that  is,  old- 
fashioned,  as  compared  with  the  colloquial  idiom. 
For  we  must  reflect  that  the  spoken  language  of 
everyday  life  is  perpetually  changing,  and  would 
soon  diverge  from  the  language  of  traditional  poetry, 
since  this,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  could  not 
keep  pace  with  the  colloquial  language.  One  was 
fixed,  and  handedi  on  from  generation  to  generation 
in  nearly  the  form  in  which  it  w^as  composed  ;  the 
other  was  ever  changing  and  acquiring  new  features, 
while  it  modified  or  lost  the  old. 

First  Attempts  at  Writing  Language. 

We  may  suppose  that  when  language  was  first 
written  down,  the  early  attempts  would  be  of  a  very 
simple  character.  Names  of  Kings  and  other  great 
personages  were  inscribed  on  stones,  and  later  on  a 
sentence  descriptive  of  those  who  had  borne  the 
names  ;  single  words,  supposed  to  possess  a  magical 
character,  were  graven  upon  sword-hilts  or  rings,  to 
act  as  charms.  Such  were  the  uses  to  which  letters 
were  first  put  by  our  own  ancestors.  The  earliest 
characters  emplo3^ed  by  the  Germanic  peoples,  of 
whom  the  English  tribes  formed  one  group,  were 
strange  angular  letters,  known  as  Runes.  This  word 
simply  meant  mystery,  and  the  reason  of  its  use  in 
this  connexion  may  have  been  due  either  to  the 
fact  that  writing  was  looked  upon  as  something 
mysterious   and   uncanny,    or    to   the   circumstance 


86  SPEAKING  AND  WRITING 

that  the  characters  were  chiefly  employed  for  magic 
purposes.  The  shape  of  the  earHest  forms  of  the 
Runic  letters  was  such  that  the}^  were  eminently 
suitable  for  cutting  or  scratching  upon  hard  sub- 
stances, such  as  stone,  metal,  or  wood.  The  very 
word  '  write,''  which  we  use  so  commonly,  meant 
originally  to  *  scratch  '  or  '  tear.'  In  German  the 
word  reissen,  which  is  descended  from  the  same  word 
as  our  '  write,'  still  means  simply  to  *  tear,'  and  has 
no  connexion,  in  that  language,  with  the  idea  of 
'  writing  '  in  our  sense. 

It  is  doubtful  whether  the  Runes  were  in  frequent 
and  widespread  use,  or  whether  they  w^ere  ever 
employed,  in  very  early  times,  for  long  documents. 
It  is  true  that  a  cross  at  Ruthwell  in  Dumfriesshire, 
which  dates  from  the  Anglo-Saxon  period,  bears  a 
portion  of  a  well-known  Old  English  poem,  in  the 
Runic  character,  but  this  was  made  after  the  other 
kind  of  writing,  in  characters  borrowed  from  the 
Irish,  but  originally  of  Roman  origin,  had  been  in- 
troduced into  this  country,  and  had  superseded  the 
old  letters  for  all  practical  purposes.  The  new 
characters  were  not  used  by  the  English  before  their 
conversion  to  Christianity  in  the  seventh  century. 
The  oldest  documents  which  we  possess,  written  in 
the  newly  acquired  characters,  are  charters  or  grants 
of  land  by  Kings,  written  on  parchment,  in  the 
seventh  and  eighth  centuries.  These  documents  are 
mainly  in  Latin,  but  contain  a  few  English  words — 
names  of  places,  people,  and  landmarks. 

It  does  not  seem  probable  that  the  old  songs, 
which  people  knew  by  heart,  were  written  down  very 
early.      In  any  case,  we  do  not    possess  any  early 


NEED  FOR  A  LITERARY  STYLE  87 

copies  of  the  oldest  songs.  The  reason  of  this  was 
no  doubt,  partly,  that  after  the  introduction  of 
Christianity,  the  Clergy  discouraged  these  produc- 
tions as  savouring  of  barbarism  and  heathendom ; 
partly,  that  they  were  so  well  known  that  it  was 
thought  unnecessary  to  write  them  down. 

If  we  make  an  exception  for  these  old  poems,  then, 
the  first  attempts  at  writing  down  English  were  of  a 
purely  practical  nature  ;  charters,  wills,  messages  and 
letters  from  great  people,  these  form  the  earliest 
written  '  Literature,'  and  while  the  spelling  in  such 
works  would  be  an  attempt  to  express  the  pronuncia- 
tion of  the  writer  as  well  as  possible,  the  style  could 
scarcely  be  other  than  that  of  ordinary  speech — in  its 
most  careful  and  accurate  form. 

Growth  of  a  Literary  as  Distinct  from  a 
Colloquial  Language. 

But  a  people  who  possessed  the  art  of  writing,  and 
whose  civilization  was  growing,  would  not  long  rest 
content  not  to  have  books  of  one  kind  or  another. 
Learned  men  could  only  teach  by  word  of  mouth 
those  with  whom  they  came  into  direct  contact  ; 
but  their  writings  could  be  read  by  those  who  had 
never  seen  the  authors,  and  long  after  they  were 
dead. 

So  gradually  men  learnt  more  and  more,  and 
taught  more  and  more,  with  the  result  that  prose 
literature  began  to  develop.  People  wanted  to 
know  about  their  ancestors,  and  also  that  their 
children's  children  should  know  what  they  them- 
selves had   done,   and   so   came   the   beginnings   of 


88  SPEAKING  AND  WRITING 

English  History.  The  great  Saint  and  Scholar 
Bede  wrote — in  Latin,  it  is  true — a  history  of  the 
Church  in  England,  wherein,  incidentally,  a  great 
deal  of  such  other  history  concerning  our  people  as 
he  could  gather  from  well-authenticated  tradition, 
and  from  reliable  eyewitnesses,  is  also  recorded. 
This  he  did  in  the  eighth  century. 

More  than  a  century  later,  the  greatest  King, 
warrior,  and  patriot  that  this  country  has  ever  seen 
caused  Bede's  History  to  be  translated  into  the 
English  of  his  day.  King  Alfred  was  no  less 
admirable  in  peace  than  in  war,  and  we  may  date 
the  beginnings  of  English  Prose,  so  far  as  we  have 
any  record  of  it,  from  the  labours  of  himself  and  his 
Bishops.  He  started  a  regular  Chronicle  of  the 
principal  events  of  each  year  in  England  ;  he  trans- 
lated works  on  History,  Religion,  and  Philosophy  ; 
he  reissued  and  amended  the  Laws  of  his  ancestors. 
Under  this  Prince  learning  and  piety,  and  the  arts  of 
peace  were  fostered  and  established. 

Now,  when  the  habit  of  composing  works  in  a 
language  and  of  writing  them  down  becomes  fre- 
quent, two  results  necessarily  follow :  One  is  that 
a  fixed  system  of  spelling,  which  practically  every  one 
adopts,  becomes  established ;  the  other  is  that  what 
is  known  as  a  Literary  Style  develops,  which  is 
different  from,  and  in  some  ways  better,  more  eloquent, 
and  more  exact  than,  the  style  of  colloquial  speech. 

These  points  may  be  considered  separately. 

I.  Divergence  of  Spelling  from  Pronunciation. 
— We  assume  that  in  all  cases,  when  a  language  is 
first  written  down,  the  spelling  is  as  nearly  phonetic 
as  the  set  of  symbols  at  the  disposal  of  the  writers 


RELATION  OF  SPELLING  TO  PRONUNCIATION  89 

will  allow.  It  is  surely  clear  that  in  these  circum- 
stances people  do  not  use  the  same  symbol  to 
express  several  different  sounds,  unless  they  have 
fewer  symbols  than  they  have  sounds  to  express.  It 
is  also  certain  that  men  do  not  begin  by  writing 
down  symbols  which  express  no  sound  at  all,  as  in 
Modern  English  bright,  where  gh  do  not  stand  for  any 
consonantal  sounds  which  occur  in  the  pronunciation 
of  the  word. 

But  supposing  that  the  spelling  has  become  fixed, 
because  age  after  age  people  continue  to  write  as 
their  ancestors  wrote  hundreds  of  years  before.  In 
this  case,  if  the  pronunciation  changes,  which  it 
certainly  has  done  in  English,  the  spelling  ceases,  on 
the  whole,  to  be  phonetic  ;  for  with  the  advance  of 
time  pronunciation  grows  farther  and  farther  away 
from  it.  The  only  languages  w^hich  are  as  nearly  as 
possible  phonetically  spelt  at  the  present  day  are 
those  in  which  the  pronunciation  has  hardly  changed 
at  all  since  the  spelling  was  fixed,  like  Welsh  and 
Finnish.  If,  in  addition  to  this  conservatism  in 
pronunciation,  the  set  of  symbols  employed  is  very 
complete,  so  that  every  sound  which  exists  in  the 
language  has  a  special  symbol  to  represent  it,  as  is 
practically  the  case  in  Russian,  then  we  get  as  near 
perfection  in  the  correspondence  between  sound  and 
symbol  as  it  is  possible  to  attain. 

In  Old  English  (that  is,  the  language  from  the 
beginnings  of  our  history  down  to  about  1080)  the 
symbols  were  very  nearly,  though  not  quite,  adequate 
to  express  the  pronunciation.  In  addition  to  this, 
although  the  spelling  of  each  age  was  fairly  fixed, 
still,  from  time  to  time,  as  very  remarkable  changes 


90  SPEAKING  AND  WRITING 

in  pronunciation  developed,  the  system  of  spelling 
was  graduall}'  adapted  so  as  to  record  them. 

The  process  of  adapting  spelling  to  pronunciation 
continued  in  English  until  soon  after  the  introduction 
of  printing  in  1475.  Since  then  few  changes  in 
spelling,  and  these,  for  the  most  part,  not  of  a 
phonetic  character,  have  taken  place,  although  pro- 
nunciation has  continued  to  change  all  the  time. 
Hence,  at  the  present  time,  our  spelling  is  very 
unsatisfactory.  We  shall  return  later  on  in  more 
detail  to  the  explanation  of  some  of  the  more 
remarkable  features  of  English  spelling. 

2.  Divergence  of  Literary  Style  from  that 
of  the  Spoken  Language. — The  style  of  prose, 
as  we  have  already  said,  cannot  differ,  in  the 
beginnings,  from  the  style  of  the  spoken  lan- 
guage. The  language  of  books  at  the  present  day 
is  very  different  from  that  of  ordinary  colloquial 
speech.  This  difference  is  due  to  the  fact  that 
writers  follow  a  Literary  Tradition,  and  mould  their 
style  upon  other  writings — at  least,  to  a  great  extent. 
In  so  far  as  WTiters  follow  literary  tradition,  their 
written  style  wall  differ  from  the  language  of  every- 
day life  ;  in  so  far  as  they  write  more  or  less  as  they 
speak,  the  style  of  their  books  w^ill  agree  with  that  of 
colloquial  English.  But  when  the  writing  of  books 
is  in  its  infancy,  there  can  be  no  literary  tradition 
behind,  and  in  this  case  prose  style  can  only  follow 
the  best,  clearest,  and  most  expressive  models  which 
can  be  found  in  Spoken  Language. 

But  a  literary  tradition  is  soon  created.  Words, 
phrases,  turns  of  expression,  which  are  usual  in  the 
speech    of    common    life,    and    which    there   seem 


THE  LANCxUAGE  OF  ORATORY  91 

natural  and  suitable,  appear  too  trivial,  too  common, 
and  devoid  of  sufficient  dignity  for  a  permanent 
record  of  great  events,  or  the  treatment  of  solemn 
and  lofty  themes. 

Whence  can  a  literary  language  come  in  the  first 
instance  ?  What  sources  of  vocabulary  and  phrase- 
ology, other  than  colloquial  speech,  are  at  the  disposal 
of  a  writer  in  a  language  which  as  yet  possesses  no 
literary  tradition  ? 

Sources  of  Literary  Style. 

The  first  of  these  would  appear  to  be  the  language 
of  oratory.  Even  the  most  barbarous  peoples,  such 
as  the  Red  Indians  of  North  America,  or  the  Maories 
of  New  Zealand,  who,  of  course,  have  nothing  in  the 
shape  of  written  literature,  still  have  considerable 
natural  gifts  of  oratory.  The  art  of  eloquence,  or 
the  faculty  of  speaking  in  such  a  way  as  to  stir  large 
companies  of  people,  to  rouse  their  enthusiasm  for 
a  common  cause,  or  to  kindle  their  respect  and 
loyalty  for  a  chief  or  a  leader,  is  one  that  must  be 
practised  from  the  moment  that  men  are  banded 
together  in  tribes  or  armies,  under  the  authority  of 
chief  or  captain,  for  purposes  either  of  war  or 
peaceful  communal  life. 

The  devices  of  orators  to  command  attention,  to 
interest  and  persuade  an  audience,  are  well  known. 
Expressive  gestures,  dramatic  tones  of  voice,  and 
phrases  which  strike  the  imagination  and  appeal  to 
the  hearts  or  minds  of  the  hearers,  are  all  brought 
into  play.  We  are  especially  concerned  with  the 
last.     The  well-known  words  and  phrases  of  every- 


92  SPEAKING  AND  WRITING 

day  life  do  not  suffice  by  themselves  for  the  orator's 
effect.  He  uses  a  vocabulary  which  is  less  common- 
place—a diction  which  is  more  stately,  elaborate, 
and  pointed  than  those  of  ordinary  conversation. 
His  model  is  the  traditional  language  of  the  poet  or 
minstrel,  and  of  the  oratory  of  his  race.  The  charac- 
teristics of  these  forms  of  speech  are  that  they  are 
more  or  less  remote  and  different  from  colloquial 
speech,  and  that  they  are  more  or  less  archaic — that 
is,  old-fashioned.  The  comparatively  high  polish 
which  the  language  of  minstrelsy  and  of  oratory 
often  shows,  even  among  peoples  who  have  no 
written  literature,  and  the  care  with  which  these  are 
cultivated,  frequently  for  long  ages,  makes  them  the 
natural  models  of  the  first  efforts  towards  literary 
style,  when  the  need  for  this  is  felt. 

Another  source  from  which  the  language  of  litera- 
ture is  enriched  and  beautified  is  the  vocabulary  and 
sentence  -  structure  of  a  foreign  language  with  a 
higher  and  older  literary  development.  In  Modern 
English,  for  instance,  such  a  word  as  coruscate,  instead 
of  the  homelier  English  glitter,  is  often  used  for  the 
purpose  of  giving  variety  and  dignity  to  a  sentence. 

These,  then,  are  the  two  main  sources  of  develop- 
ment of  literary  style  in  the  first  instance :  the  tradi- 
tional poetry  and  oratory  of  the  native  language,  and 
elements  of  vocabulary  and  structure  adopted  from 
foreign  languages. 

The  chief  features  which  distinguish  a  literary 
from  a  colloquial  style  are  that  the  former  is  archaic, 
that  it  is  less  familiar  and  commonplace,  and  that  it  is 
more  careful  and  deliberate  than  the  latter. 

The  style  of  public  speaking  lies  between  that  of 


'TALKING  LIKE  A  BOOK'  93 

books  and  that  of  everyday  life.  It  is  rather  more 
archaic  and  careful  than  the  latter,  rather  less  so 
than  the  former. 


Speaking  and  Writing  in  Modern  English. 

If  we  now  apply  what  has  been  said  generally  of 
the  distinction  between  the  language  of  Literature 
and  Colloquial  Speech  to  our  native  tongue,  we  find 
that  it  holds  good. 

It  is  sometimes  said,  though  not  by  way  of  praise, 
that  a  man  talks  as  though  he  were  'addressing  a 
public  meeting,'  or  as  though  he  were  '  delivering  a 
lecture.'  This  means  that  there  is  a  noticeable 
difference  between  the  English  which  we  are  ac- 
customed to  expect  in  ordinary  familiar  conversa- 
tion, and  that  which  we  expect  from  the  platform  or 
the  pulpit.  To  introduce  the  style  of  a  lecture,  a 
public  speech,  or  a  sermon,  into  private  life  and 
intercourse  is  an  offence  against  good  taste  which  is 
commonly  resented  and  condemned. 

But  a  still  more  serious  charge  is  sometimes 
brought  against  pompous  and  pedantic  people — 
namely,  that  they  '  talk  like  a  book.'  This  is  even 
worse  than  '  lecturing  '  instead  of  carrying  on  an 
easy  and  natural  conversation.  The  style  of  books 
is  even  more  archaic,  and  more  unsuited  foe  the 
requirements  of  ordinary  friendly  converse,  than 
that  of  public  speech. 

We  see,  on  reflection,  that  in  Modern  English 
there  are  at  least  these  three  main  types  of  language : 
two  forms   of  spoken  English,  that  of   private   life 


94  SPEAKING  AND  WRITING 

and  that  of  public  oration ;  and  in  addition  the 
language  of  books. 

The  language  of  the  public  speaker  is  liable  to 
almost  infinite  variation  in  the  degree  of  homeliness 
which  it  displays;  sometimes  it  is  so  measured, 
highly  wrought,  and  lofty  in  diction  that  it  is 
scarcely  distinguishable  from  literary  style.  Again, 
it  may  tend  in  the  opposite  direction,  towards 
extreme  colloquialism.  The  precise  nature  of  good 
oratorical  style  "is  determined  by  the  occasion,  the 
subject,  and  by  the  size  of  the  audience.  It  must 
not  be  supposed  that  we  assert  that  the  three  st3'les 
of  English  we  have  referred  to  are  so  distinct  one 
from  the  other  that  they  do  not  shade  almost  im- 
perceptibly into  each  other.  The  natural  conversa- 
tional style  of  people  who  have  much  to  do  with 
books  is  liable  to  be  much  influenced  thereby,  and 
to  them  many  words  and  phrases  are  habitual  which 
in  the  mouths  of  other  less  cultured  persons  would 
seem  unnatural  and  unsuitable,  although  used  in 
similar  circumstances. 

But  the  written  and  the  spoken  language,  among 
all  classes  of  speakers,  constantly  act  and  react  upon 
one  another.  The  language  of  ordinary  life,  directly 
or  indirectly,  is  always  being  influenced  by  the 
literature  of  the  age ;  but  far  more  important  is  the 
influence  which  the  colloquial  speech  of  any  period 
fexerts  upon  the  language  of  literature.  We  shall  see 
that  the  close  connexion  between  spoken  and  written 
language,  which  exists  under  healthy  circumstances, 
is  the  life  of  the  latter,  and  the  chief  means  whereby 
it  is  vitalized  and  made  a  good  instrument  to  express 
the  spirit  of  the  age. 


GOOD  TASTE  DECIDES  WxHAT  IS  'CORRECT'    95 

If  we  wish  to  see  the  connexion  between  the 
language  of  hterature  and  spoken  language  in  a 
proper  light,  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  realize 
that  spoken  language  comes  first :  it  is  not  derived 
from  books ;  it  has  an  origin  which  is  necessarily 
altogether  independent  of  literature ;  it  has  a  life 
and  a  history  which  are  separate  and  distinct  from 
those  of  the  written  language  ;  and  if  this  had  no 
existence  at  all,  language,  which  is  uttered,  heard, 
and  handed  on  from  generation  to  generation,  would 
still  continue  to  live  and  develop. 

Nothing  is  more  mistaken  than  the  view  which  is 
sometimes  taught,  that  the  colloquial  style  is  less 
'  correct '  than  that  of  books,  and  that  such  contrac- 
tions, for  instance,  as  isn't,  can't  they're  (they  are), 
Fve,  he'll,  and  hundreds  of  others  which  are  habitual 
to  all  good  speakers  of  English,  are  in  reality  vulgar- 
isms, which  '  correct '  speakers  should  avoid.  The 
fact  is,  that  these  forms  are  in  many  cases  the  only 
'  correct '  forms  in  colloquial  speech,  and  to  use  is 
not,  they  are,  he  will,  and  so  on,  would  be  pedantic  or 
worse,  if  that  be  possible.  Whether  it  is  at  all  times 
suitable  and  convenient  to  use  these  colloquial 
forms  in  public  speaking  is  an  entirely  different 
question,  and  one  which  the  good  taste  of  the 
speaker  must  decide,  with  proper  regard  to  the 
occasion  and  the  audience. 

The  use  of  literary  or  semi-literary  words  and 
expressions  in  colloquial  speech  is  often  a  worse 
offence  than  the  use  of  colloquial  expressions  in 
public  speaking  or  in  writing.  Good  writers  know 
by  instinct  just  how  far  familiar  expressions  may  be 
introduced  into  a  literary  production ;  good  speakers 


96  SPEAKING  AND  WRITING 

feel,  in  the  same  may,  just  where  to  draw  the  Hne, 
in  colloquial  speech,  between  what  is  expressive  and 
appropriate  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other,  what 
would  be  pompous  and  affected. 

When  children  first  try  to  write,  an  essay,  let  us 
say,  they  have  to  learn  that  much  that  is  perfectly 
'right,'  and  permissible  in  ordinary  conversation,  is 
trivial  and  out  of  place  in  a  serious,  written  prose. 
They  must  learn  literary  terms,  and  must  further 
learn  how  far  these  can  be  mingled  with  more 
familiar  words.  The  precise  value  of  a  word, 
whether  as  an  element  in  literature  or  in  speech,  can 
only  be  felt  and  understood  by  practice  and  ex- 
perience. We  need  to  know  not  merely  the  bare 
meaning  of  a  word  or  phrase,  but  what  are  the^ 
associations  of  ideas  which  it  calls  up.  This  is  the  I 
difficult  lesson  of  every  one  who  is  learning  to  speak 
and  write  a  language,  whether  it  be  his  own  or  a 
foreign  tongue.  Foreigners  make  terrible  mistakes 
by  mixing  up  the  colloquial  and  the  more  elevated 
styles  in  writing  English.  Thus,  a  native  Indian 
writer,  who  compiled,  in  English,  the  life  of  a  relative, 
referred  to  this  gentleman's  appointment  as  a  Judge 
of  the  Supreme  Court  as  '  altogether  judicious  and 
tip- top.' 

Again,  when  he  visited  the  house  where  the  Judge 
had  died  suddenly,  he  found  '  a  house  of  mourning, 
confusion  everywhere — in  fact^  a  pretty  kettle  of  fish.' 
We  have  here  examples  of  expressions  which,  under 
other  circumstances,  would  be  perfectly  proper,  but 
which  become  ridiculous  by  being  applied  to  occa- 
sions and  in  a  context  where  they  have  no  possible 
place. 


CHARACTER  OF  WORDS  DUE  TO  ASSOCIATION  97 

Finally,  we  must  remember  that  words  in  them- 
selves, and  from  their  own  nature,  are  neither  good  nor 
bad,  dignified  nor  the  reverse.  They  receive  their 
power  and  their  precise  significance  from  long 
custom  and  usage.  The  associations  which  cluster 
round  them,  and  whence  they  derive  their  peculiar 
expressiveness  for  good  or  ill,  for  noble  or  ignoble 
use,  often  reach  back  into  the  roots  of  our  race's 
history,  and  that  of  our  language.  The  degree  of 
mastery  of  a  language  which  we  possess,  and  our 
power  to  use  the  appropriate  word,  depends  very 
largely  upon  our  knowledge  of  the  precise  feelings 
and  ideas  associated  wath  each  element  in  our 
vocabulary. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

WHAT  IS  MEANT  BY  THE  HISTORY  OF  A  LAN- 
GUAGE—LANDMARKS IN  THE  HISTORY  OF 
ENGLISH 

How  we  know  that  Language  changes. 

Hitherto  we  have  dealt  almost  entirely  with 
the  English  Language  as  it  is  at  the  present 
moment,  and  have  only  incidentally  dwelt  upon  the 
fact  that  it  was  not  always  as  we  know  it  now,  but 
that  it  has  slowly  reached  its  present  form  from 
something  very  different.  In  other  words,  we  have 
up  to  this  point  hardly  dwelt  at  all  upon  the  fact 
that  English,  in  common  with  all  other  languages 
which  now  exist,  has  a  history  in  the  past.  The 
meaning  of  the  phrase  the  History  of  a  Language  it 
is  our  present  business  to  try  to  explain. 

It  is  easy  to  say  that  English  was  once  very 
different  from  what  it  is  now,  but,  you  may  say,  how 
can  we  know  this  ? 

Some  of  the  observations  which  we  made  in  a  former 
chapter  (pp.  56-57,  59,  67-68,  74-81)  will  put  us  on 
the  track  of  the  truth.  In  considering  the  varieties 
which  exist  at  the  present  day  in  English  speech,  we 
saw  that  not  only  do  people  from  different  parts  of 
the  country,  or  belonging  to  different  social  divisions, 

98 


PAST  HISTORY  OF  ENGLISH  99 

speak  differently  from  each  other,  but  that  certain 
differences  exist,  in  pronunciation,  in  vocabulary,  and 
in  phraseology,  between  people  of  the  same  class  from 
the  same  district,  but  of  different  age.  We  have 
also  indicated  that  certain  tendencies  to  change  can 
be  detected  in  our  own  pronunciation,  and  that  of 
our  contemporaries. 

Now,  as  a  rule,  the  oldest  people  we  are  likely  to 
meet  belong  to  the  same  generation  as  our  own 
grandfathers,  or  at  most  our  great  -  grandfathers. 
As  children  we  may  meet  and  speak  to  persons  of 
eighty  years,  or  a  little  more — persons,  that  is,  who  are 
from  two  to  three  generations  older  than  ourselves. 

But  if  the  English  language  can  change  so  far  in 
from  sixty  to  eighty  years  that  the  differences  are  ob- 
servable, it  is  surely  obvious  that  600,  800,  1,000,  or 
1,200  years  ago,  it  must  have  been  immensely  different 
from  its  present  form.  For  there  is  no  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  those  things  which  we  can  actually  observe 
now  going  on  in  language  have  not  gone  on  in  the 
past  and  from  the  earliest  times.  If  English  has 
changed  more  or  less  in  sixty  or  eighty  years,  and  is 
still  changing,  it  is  therefore  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  the  longer  the  period  we  allow,  the  greater  will 
the  changes  be.  We  can  note  the  changes  that 
have  taken  place  in  the  comparatively  short  time 
mentioned,  but  how  can  w^e  know  what  changes  took 
place  at  earlier  times,  the  language  of  which  we  can 
no  longer  hear  ? 

Now,  although  we  cannot  hear  the  hving  voice  of 
the  people  who  lived  hundreds  of  years  ago,  we  can 
yet  read  what  they  wrote  if  it  has  been  preserved. 
We  have  seen  in  Chapter  VI.  that  our  earliest  know- 

7—2 


loo  THE  HISTORY  OF  LANGUAGE 

ledge  of  English  from  written  sources  goes  back  about 
1,200  years.  From  the  seventh  century  onwards  we 
have  an  ever-increasing  mass  of  writings,  of  all  kinds, 
written  in  the  English  of  the  different  periods.  So 
much,  then,  as  can  be  learnt  from  written  forms  of 
language,  we  can  learn  concerning  the  past  of  the 
English  language  during  this  long  period. 

It  is  clear  that  so  far  as  changes  in  vocabulary, 
in  grammar,  and  in  phraseology,  and  the  way  of 
building  sentences,  are  concerned,  we  have  plenty  of 
means  of  studying  these  in  the  written  language. 
But  as  concerns  pronunciation  the  case  is  different ; 
we  have  only  symbols  or  letters,  and  not  the  sounds 
themselves.  How,  then,  can  we  tell  what  the  pro- 
nunciation of  English  was  Hke  before  the  time  of  the 
oldest  persons  now  living  ? 

We  have  no  absolutely  direct  means  of  discovering 
this,  but  fortunately  we  have  other  evidence  which 
is  pretty  conclusive. 

A.  Changes  in  the  Pronunciation  of  English. 

There  are  four  principal  means  of  finding  out  the 
sounds  used  in  English  before  the  present  day. 
These  are  :  (i)  changes  in  spelling  ;  (2)  the  evidence 
of  Rhymes;  (3)  comparison  with  other  languages; 
(4)  the  testimony  of  writers  in  the  past  concerning 
their  own  pronunciation. 

I.  Changes  in  Spelling. — As  we  have  seen,  down 
to  the  introduction  of  Printing,  English  speUing 
changes  from  age  to  age  in  such  a  way  that  we 
cannot  doubt  but  that  in  many  cases  changes  of  sound 
are  implied.     For  instance,  if  down  to  the  middle  of 


WHAT  WE  CAN  LEARN  FROM  RHYMES       loi 

the  twelfth  century,  or  thereabouts,  we  find  ham, 
ban,  Stan,  gat,  \^Titten  for  'home,'  'bone,'  'stone,' 
'  goat,'  and  if  after  that  date  we  find  hoom,  boon, 
stoon,  goot,  got,  or  goat;  and  if  in  all  other  words 
which  had  a  long  vowel,  expressed  by  a  in  the  first 
period,  the  spelling,  in  the  second,  is  changed  to  oo, 
etc.,  we  can  hardly  doubt  that  the  two  spellings  express 
very  different  sounds.  And  since  in  Present-day 
English  these  words  all  have  what  we  call  '  a  long  o,' 
we  are  justified  in  assuming  that  when  the  spelling  o, 
etc.,  comes  in,  the  pronunciation  has  changed  to  a 
sound  approximating  to  '  a  long  o-sound.' 

2.  The  Evidence  of  Rhymes. — If  we  examine 
the  words  which  occur  as  rhymes  in  the  works 
of  the  English  poets  of  the  past,  we  find  that  a 
very  large  proportion  of  such  words  would  make 
perfectly  good  rhymes  at  the  present  time.  The 
cases  where  the  older  and  more  recent  poetry  agree 
in  rhyming  the  same  words  tell  us  nothing,  of 
course,  concerning  the  precise  nature  of  the  pro- 
nunciation of  the  words  in  question  at  any  given 
period ;  all  we  can  gather  from  such  evidence  is 
that  two  or  more  words  which  have  the  same  sound 
to-day,  also  had  the  same  sound  in  earlier  times. 
But  so  far  as  we  can  tell  from  this  line  of  investiga- 
tion alone,  the  actual  sound  which  is  common  to  a 
group  of  words  may  have  been  precisely  the  same  in 
the  days  of  Chaucer  as  at  the  present  time. 

But  by  the  side  of  the  very  large  majority  of 
rhymes  in  the  English  poets  from  the  days  of  Pope 
back  to  those  of  Chaucer  w^ich  are  the  same  as 
poets  of  the  present  day  would  use,  there  are  others 
which  no  poet  of  the  present  day  would  employ,  or 


I02  THE  HISTORY  OF  LANGUAGE 

if  he  did  so,  the  result  would  be,  by  common  consent, 
a  bad  rhyme.  We  may  give  a  few  instances  from 
Pope,  Shakespeare,  and  Chaucer,  of  rhymes  which 
we  have  reason  to  believe  were  good  rhymes  at  the 
time  the  poets  wrote,  but  which  would  not  be  good 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  actual  pronunciation  of 
English  in  our  own  time. 

'  Fine  by  defect  and  delicately  ivcak, 
Their  happy  spots  the  nice  admirer  take.' 

Moral  Essays,  Epistle  ii.,  11.  43-4. 

'  Last  night,  her  lord  was  all  that's  good  and  great ; 
A  knave  this  morning,  and  his  will  a  cheat.'' 

Ibid.,  11.  141-2. 

*  While  the  gaunt  mastiff  growling  at  the  gate, 
Affrights  the  beggar  whom  he  longs  to  eat.' 

Moral  Essays,  Epistle  iii.,  11.  195-6. 

'  A  hireling  scribbler  or  a  hireling  peer, 
Knight  of  the  post  corrupt,  or  of  the  shire,'  etc. 

Epistle  to  Arbuthnot,  11.  364-5. 

'  Whose  word  is  truth,  as  sacred  as  revered 
As  heav'n's  own  oracles  from  altars  heard.'' 

To  Augustus,  11.  27-8. 

*  But  for  the  wits  of  either  Charles's  days, 
The  mob  of  gentlemen  who  wrote  with  ease.'' 

Ibid.,  11.  107-8. 

'At  length,  by  wholesome  dread  of  statutes  bound, 
The  poets  learned  to  plfi?sc,  and  jiot  to  wound.' 

Ibid.,  M.  257-8. 

'Waller  was  smooth  ;  but  Dryden  taught  to  join 
The  varying  verse,  the  full  resounding  line. 
The  long  majestic  march,  and  energy  divine,' 

Ibid.,  M.  267-9 


RHYMES  OF  SHAKESPEARE  AND  CHAUCER     103 

A  few  examples  of  a  similar  kind  from  Shakespeare 
are; 

'  And  midst  the  sentence  so  her  accent  breaks, 
That  twice  she  doth  begin  ere  once  she  speaks.' 

Rape  of  Lucrece,  M.  566-7. 

From  the  Sonnets:  Departest — convertest  (xi.);  Ii^yd 
— beard  (xii.) ;  art  —  convert  (xiv.)  ;  come  —  tomb  ; 
deserts — parts;  tongue — song  (xvii.);  brood — blood  (xix.) ; 
created — defeated  (xx.) ;  beloved — removed  (xxv.) ;  past  — 
waste  ;  foregone — moan  (xxx.) ;  worth — forth  (xxxviii.) ; 
feast — gtcest  (xlvii.). 

From  the  poetry  of  Chaucer  we  learn  not  only  that 
words  which  do  not  rhyme  now  did  so  in  his  day, 
implying  a  difference  of  vowel  sound,  but  also  that 
some  words  were  differently  accented  then,  and, 
further,  that  in  many  words  syllables  which  modern 
language  has  lost  we  still  retained  in  the  fourteenth 
century.  These  last  two  points  we  deduce  from  the 
requirements  of  metre.  In  the  following  extracts 
the  stress  is  marked  in  cases  where  it  differs  from 
present  usage,  and  syllables  now  lost,  but  retained 
by  Chaucer,  are  italicized.  The  examples  are  all 
from  the  Knightes  Tale,  and  the  numbers  refer  to  the 
lines  of  that  poem. 

*  To  ransake  in  the  tas  of  bodyes  ded^ 
Hem  for  to  strepe  of  harneys  and  of  wedd.' 

148-9. 

['  To  ransack  in  the  heap  of  dead  bodies, 

In  order  to  strip  them  of  their  armour  and  clothes.'] 

The  word  weed  in  this  sense  now  survives  only  in 
the  phrase  widow's  weeds. 


I04  THE  HISTORY  OF  LANGUAGE 

'  And  myn  is  love  as  to  a  creature, 

[m  pronounced  as  two  vowels. 
For  which  I  toldd  thee  myn  aventure.' 

300-1. 
'The  pure  fettres  on  his  shines  grete  [pure='  very.'] 
Wer(e)n  of  his  bittre  salte  teres  wete.' 

421-2. 

*  To  see  my  lady,  that  I  love  and  serve 
In  her  presence  I  recche  not  to  sterve.' 

lreccJie= '  reck  ';  to  sterve  =  ' to  die,'  '  if  I  die.' 

539-40- 

*  In  gaude  grene  hir  statue  clotherf  was 

[gaude  grene  =  '  green  dye.' 
With  bo  we  in  honde  and  arwes  in  a  cas.' 

I22I-2. 

'  Somme  woln  ben  armed  on  hir  legges  weel,  [well] 
And  have  an  ax,  and  somme  a  mace  of  steel.' 

1265-6. 

(The  same  rhyme  occurs  again,  11.  1299-1300.) 

*  With  Arcita  in  stories  as  men  finde, 

The  grete  Emetreus,  the  King  of  Inde  .  .  .' 

1297-8. 
'  An  hundred  lordes  hadde  he  with  him  there, 
Al  armed,  sauf  hir  heddes  in  al  hir  gere '  [gear]. 

1321-2. 
'  But  mercy,  lady  bright,  that  knowest  weel 
My  thought,  and  seest  what  harmes  that  I  feel.' 

1373-4- 
'  Th'  encens,  the  clothes,  and  the  remenent  al 
That  to  the  sacrifyce  longen  shal.' 

1419-20. 

Earlier  Views  on  Chaucer's  Metre.— The  fact 
that  such  words  as  *  harmes,'  '  clothes,'  etc.,  were 
pronounced  with  two  syllables  in  the  fourteenth 
century   was    not    generally   realized    until    the   ap- 


THE  DISCOVEl^IES  OF  GRAY  AND  TYRWHITT  105 

pearance  of  the  essay  on  Chaucer's  Language  and 
Metre  by  Thomas  Tyrwhitt,  which  was  pubhshed 
in  1775  in  the  four-volume  edition  of  the  Canterhiiry 
Tales  from  the  hand  of  this  editor.  Previously  to 
Tyrwhitt's  discovery,  Johnson,  in  the  Rambler 
(No.  88,  1785)  had  hinted  at  the  probability  that  our 
ancestors  pronounced  certain  syllables  which  we  no 
longer  pronounce,  but  his  remarks  do  not  refer 
specially  to  Chaucer.  The  first  critic  who  really 
pointed  out  the  difference  of  accent  and  in  the 
number  of  syllables  of  the  older  forms  of  English  as 
compared  with  the  modern  was  Gray  the  poet,  who 
arrived  quite  independently  at  the  truth,  and 
embodied  it  in  his  two  essays,  On  English  Metre 
and  On  the  Poems  of  Lydgate,  These  essays  were 
written  long  before  the  appearance  of  Tyrwhitt's 
edition,  but  were  not  pubhshed  until  1814,  in  the  so- 
called  Eton  Edition  of  Mathias.  Tyrwhitt's  dis- 
covery is  therefore  perfectly  independent  and  original. 
With  that  just  insight  w^hich  informs  all  Gray's 
critical  work,  he  remarks  (Mathias's  Edition,  p.  31, 
vol.  ii.) :  '  I  am  inclined  to  think  (whatever  Mr.  Dry- 
den  says  in  the  preface  to  his  tales)  that  their  metre, 
at  least  in  serious  measures  and  in  heroick  stanzas, 
was  uniform ;  not  indeed  to  the  eye,  but  to  the  ear, 
when  rightly  pronounced.  We  undoubtedly  destroy  a 
great  part  of  the  musick  of  their  versification  by 
laying  the  accent  of  words  where  nobody  then  laid  it ' 
{cf.  also  other  remarks  on  this  point  on  this  and 
following  pages  of  the  Essay  on  Lydgate).  The  loss 
of  inflexional  syllables,  in  genitives,  plurals,  infini- 
tives, etc.,  is  discussed  with  great  acuteness  and 
learning  at  the  beginning  of  the  Essay  on  Metre. 


io6  THE  HISTORY  OF  LANGUAGE 

The  mention  of  Dryden  in  the  passage  quoted 
recalls  the  fact  that  he  and  many  other  poets  of  the 
seventeenth  century  were  in  the  habit  of  referring  in 
terms  of  patronizing  toleration  of  Chaucer's  verse,  as 
being  a  barbarous  product  of  a  rude  age.  Thus, 
DrydeUj  in  the  Preface  to  the  Fables,  to  which  Gray 
is  referring,  says :  *  Though  he  must  always  be 
thought  a  great  poet,  he  is  no  longer  esteemed  a 
good  writer.'  Again  :  '  The  verse  of  Chaucer,  I 
confess,  is  not  harmonious  to  us,  .  .  .  they  who  lived 
with  him,  and  some  time  after  him,  thought  it 
musical ;  .  .  .  there  is  the  rude  music  of  a  Scotch 
tune  in  it,  which  is  natural  and  pleasing,  though  not 
perfect.'  Again :  '  Chaucer,  I  confess,  is  a  rough 
diamond,  and  must  first  be  polished  ere  he  shines  ' 
(see  Ker's  Essays  of  John  Dryden,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  258-9, 
265).  Thus  could  so  great  a  poet  and  fine  a  critic 
as  Dryden  write  of  so  musical  a  writer  as  Chaucer, 
owing  to  his  failure  to  perceive  what  the  genius  and 
learning  of  Gray  divined  fifty  years  later. 

Imperfect  Rhymes  in  Use  at  the  Present  Day. — 
Such  rhymes  as  '  brood — blood,'  '  created — defeated,' 
*  removed  —  beloved,'  'bound  —  wound,'  'great  — 
cheat,'  which  we  have  noted  as  occurring  in  Shake- 
speare and  Pope,  are  sometimes  used  by  poets  of  the 
present  day.  They  are  not  good  rhymes,  so  far  as 
the  sound  goes,  but  they  are  tolerated.  What  is  the 
reason  of  this  ?  There  is  no  doubt  that  one  reason 
why  such  rhymes  are  used  is  that  the  pairs,  although 
differently  pronounced,  are  spelt  alike,  and  many 
people  are  satisfied  with  what  is  called  an  '  eye- 
rhyme.'  There  are  those  even  who  would  assert 
that  words  which  are  not   spelt    in    the    same  way 


GOOD  RHYME  NOT  DEPENDENT  ON  SPELLING  107 

ought  not  to  be  associated  in  rhyme,  even  if  the 
sound  of  both  is  identical.  Thus  *  gnawed — cord,' 
which  probably  all  speakers  of  Standard  English 
pronounce  so  as  to  rhyme  absolutely,  would  be 
denounced  as  a  '  bad  rhyme,'  because  the  same  sound 
is  spelt  -or-  in  one  case,  and  -aw-  in  the  other.  This 
is  not  a  good  argument,  for  rhyme  is  a  question  of 
sound,  and  not  of  spelhng.  The  difference  in  speUing 
in  *  cord — gnawed,'  of  course,  shows  that  at  one  time 
these  words  were  not  pronounced  alike ;  indeed, 
provincial  and  old-fashioned  speakers  still  make  a 
difference  between  them,  but  the  majority  of  speakers 
of  Standard  English  at  the  present  day  do  pronounce 
them  alike,  and  for  them,  therefore,  the  words  con- 
stitute a  perfect  rhyme. 

It  is  a  strange  thing  that  '  love — prove,'  which 
have  quite  different  vowel  sounds,  should  yet  be 
considered  a  good  rhyme,  merely  because  they  are 
written  with  the  same  symbols. 

But  it  is  probable  that  rhymes  of  this  class  have 
come  to  be  regarded  as  '  good,'  not  solely  on  account 
of  the  spelling,  but  because,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  such 
words  formerly  were  pronounced  alike,  and  were 
employed  as  rhymes,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the  works 
of  great  poets  several  centuries  ago.  Thus,  these 
rhymes  have  become  traditional ;  they  are  still  used 
by  good  poets,  because  it  has  been  an  unbroken 
custom  to  do  so  from  the  days  in  which  the  words 
really  did  rhyme ;  and  now  people  who  know  nothing 
of  the  history  of  such  rhymes  are  satisfied  with  them, 
because  they  are  accustomed  to  find  them  in  the 
works  of  poets,  and  also  because  of  the  identity  of 
spelling  in  that  part  of  each  word  which  is  supposed 
to  rhyme  with  the  other. 


io8  THE  HISTORY  OF  LANGUAGE 

Rhyme  and  Spelling.  —  We  may  assume  that 
the  earlier  poets  cared  nothing  about  spelling 
in  connexion  with  rhyme.  Spelling,  down  to 
the  introduction  of  printing,  was  exceeding^  vari- 
able, and  remained  so  for  centuries  after,  though 
to  a  less  extent.  The  essential  element  of  Rhyme, 
as  poets  in  all  ages  feel,  is  sound.  Now,  it  is  a 
curious  thing  that  in  the  sixteenth  century  identity 
of  spelling  was  regarded  by  some  as  essential  to 
a  good  rhyme,  side  b}^  side,  of  course,  with  identity 
of  sound,  for  there  is  no  evidence  that  at  this  time 
words  were  rhymed  together  apart  from  their  sound, 
and  merely  on  the  ground  of  spelling.  Puttenham, 
who  wrote  an  elaborate  Arte  of  English  Poesie  in 
1589,  seems  to  think  that  unless  words  are  spelt 
ahke  they  cannot  rhyme,  and  apparently  believes 
that  by  altering  the  spelling  of  one,  so  as  to  make 
them  alike  in  this  respect,  a  good  rhyme  is  thereby 
obtained.  He  does  not  approve  of  altering  spelling 
(though  his  own  seems  to  vary  without  any  par- 
ticular principle),  but  still  thinks  that,  *  if  by  neces- 
sitie  constrained,  it  is  somewhat  more  tollerable 
to  help  the  rime  by  false  orthographie,  then 
(  =  than)  to  leave  an  unpleasant  dissonance  to  the 
eare,  by  keeping  trewe  orthographie  and  loosing  the 
rime'  (see  Arte  of  Poesie,  pp.  94-5.  Arber's  Edition, 
Constable,  1895). 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Edmund  Spenser 
writes  despight  to  rhyme  with  figJit,  spright  to  rhyme 
with  7iight,  delight,  and  even  quight  (quite),  to  rhyme 
with  light,  and  so  on.  Now%  in  Spenser's  day  all 
these  words  rhymed  perfectly  well,  but  fight,  might, 
light,  which  originally  contained  a  sound  like  that  in 


EYE-RHYMES'  IN  SPENSER  109 

German  *  gesicht '  after  the  i  had  lost  this  sound, 
although  the  spelling  -gh-,  which  originally  expressed 
it,  was  retained,  as  it  still  is  to  the  present  day.  The 
other  words,  delight,  spright,  quight,  never  contained 
this  sound,  and  were  never  spelt  in  this  way  at  an 
earlier  period.  Spenser  has  apparently  introduced 
the  -gh-  purely  for  the  sake  of  the  eye.  We  have 
retained  the  -gh-  in  delight  (delit^  in  Chaucer), 
and  spright  is  sometimes  so  written  instead  of  the 
more  historically  correct  sprite,  but  we  never  write 
quight. 

In  Chaucer's  day  such  pairs  as  those  cited  above 
could  not  have  been  rhymed  together,  because  -gh- 
was  still  pronounced  in  fight,  etc.  But  by  the  time 
of  Spenser,  this  sound,  as  has  been  said,  no  longer 
existing,  the  pairs  were  thoroughly  good  rhymes. 
Anyone  who  turns  over  the  pages  of  the  Faerie 
Queene  will  find  plenty  of  examples  of  such  altera- 
tions of  the  spelling,  to  make  good  rhymes  on  paper, 
of  words  that  were  already  good  rhymes  to  the  ear. 

3.  Comparison  of  Other  Dialects  and  Languages. 
— The  third  source  of  light  upon  the  English  sounds 
of  past  ages  is  the  pronunciation  of  corresponding 
words  in  the  various  English  dialects  of  the  present 
day,  and  in  other  languages  closely  related  to 
English,  both  in  the  present  and  their  earher  stages. 

To  take  the  point  we  have  just  been  considering, 
of  the  pronunciation  of  -gh-  in  'sight,'  'light,''  etc., 
when  we  find  that  all  the  old  Germanic  languages, 
including  Old  English,  write  -ht-  in  these  words, 
that  at  the  present  day  German,  Dutch,  etc.,  pro- 
nounce what  is  popularly  known  as  a  *  guttural '  in 
them,  and   that   the  same   is   true   of  the   Modern 


no  THE  HISTORY  OF  LANGUAGE 

Scotch  Dialect,  we  can  have  httle  doubt  (i)  that 
these  letters  do  express  a  sound  which  once  existed, 
but  which  has  now  disappeared  in  Modern  English, 
and  (2)  that  the  sound  must  have  been  approximately 
either  the  sound  now  heard  in  these  words  (sight, 
light,  etc.)  in  Scotch  and  Dutch,  or  that  heard  in 
German  at  the  present  time.  Again,  when  we  find 
that  Chaucer  never  rhymes  words  which  are  spelt 
with  -gh-  with  those  spelt  without  it,  but  that 
Spenser  does  make  such  rhymes,  as  we  have  seen 
above,  then  we  may  further  conclude  that  the  sound 
still  existed  in  the  pronunciation  of  Chaucer,  but  had 
been  lost  by  Spenser's  day. 

4.  Direct  Statements  of  Contemporary  Writers. 
— From  the  year  1530  onwards  there  has  been  a 
series  of  writers  who  have  dealt  with  considerable 
accuracy  and  minuteness  with  the  pronunciation  of 
English  at  the  time  at  which  they  wrote.  Even 
earlier,  in  1500  or  thereabouts,  an  English  Hymn  to 
the  Virgin  was  put  into  Welsh  spelling,  so  as  to 
express  the  English  pronunciation  for  Welsh  readers. 
This  work,  together  with  an  account  of  English  pro- 
nunciation written  by  Salesbury,  a  Welshman,  in 
1547,  with  a  comparison  between  it  and  Welsh,  and 
a  tract  on  Welsh  pronunciation  by  the  same  writer, 
in  1567,  which  shows  that  the  sounds  of  Welsh  were 
nearly  the  same  then  as  now,  is  a  most  valuable 
foundation  to  start  from,  and  is  of  the  greatest 
service  in  understanding  the  descriptions  given  by 
other  authorities.  The  usual  method  followed  by 
the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  century  writers  is  to 
compare  English  sounds  to  those  in  other  languages, 
many   of  which,   such   as    Italian,    we    know   have 


CONTEMPORARY  DESCRIPTIONS  OF  SOUNDS    iii- 

undergone  very  little  change  since  these  periods. 
Other  writers,  again,  give  a  very  clear  account  of  the 
actual  position  of  the  tongue  and  lips  during  the 
pronunciation  of  each  sound.  This  makes  it  doubly 
certain  what  sound  is  meant,  and,  taken  with  the 
other  accounts,  leaves  very  little  doubt.  The  main 
changes  in  English  pronunciation  since  1500  have 
been  in  the  vowel  sounds,  and  these  have  been  very 
considerable.  But  some  consonantal  changes  have 
also  taken  place,  such  as  the  dropping  of  the 
*  guttural '  in  words  like  sight,  light,  etc.,  as  men- 
tioned above,  and  the  dropping  of  initial  k  and  g  before 
n,  as  in  know  and  gnaw.  A  single  example  of  the 
kind  of  description  by  comparison  with  Welsh,  which 
is  of  so  much  use,  may  be  given.  Speaking  of  the 
pronunciation  of  English  a,  Salesbury  says :  '  A  in 
English  is  of  the  same  sound  as  a  in  Welsh,  as  is 
evident  in  these  words  of  English — all,  aal ;  pale,  paal ; 
sale,  sal.'  Welsh  a  at  the  present  time  still  has  the 
pronunciation  of  French  or  Italian  a.  The  doubling 
of  a  in  aal,  etc.,  is  intended  to  indicate  that  the 
sound  was  long  in  these  words.  We  have  no  doubt, 
therefore,  that  ale  and  pale  were  pronounced  in  the 
year  1547,  with  the  same  vowel  as  that  in  Modern 
EngHsh  father. 

W4en  once  the  pronunciation  of  the  sixteenth 
century  is  established,  there  is  comparatively  little 
difficulty  in  working  backwards  therefrom  to  Chaucer 
(died  1400),  and  even  further  back,  to  the  pronuncia- 
tion of  the  oldest  forms  of  EngHsh. 

When  all  four  sources  of  information  now  enumer- 
ated are  applied  to  every  case,  and  carefully  weighed 
and  checked  one  against  the  other,  we  arrive  at  a 


112  THE  HISTORY  OF  LANGUAGE 

very  considerable  degree  of  certainty  regarding  the 
pronunciation  of  English  at  different  periods  in  the 
past. 

Landmarks  in  the  History  of  English. 

There  are  certain  great  historical  events  v/hich 
have  so  profound  an  influence  upon  men's  lives, 
either  by  giving  them  new  ideas,  by  changing  their 
way  of  living,  or  by  bringing  them  into  contact  with 
other  races,  that  the  language  which  they  speak,  and 
by  which  they  utter  their  thoughts  and  feelings,  is 
itself  influenced  in  various  ways.  We  must  enumerate 
as  briefly  as  possible  those  external  events  in  the 
history  of  our  people  which  in  one  way  or  another 
have  left  a  definite  impress  upon  our  language. 


The  Main  Periods  in  the  History  of  English. 

We  may  divide  the  history  of  English  into  three 
great  periods  of  growth :  Old  English  (O.E.),  which 
lasts  from  the  landing  of  the  English  tribes  in 
Britain  until  about  iioo  ;  Middle  English  (M.E.), 
from  iioo  till  about  1475  ;  Modern  English  (Mod. 
Eng.),  from  1475  until  the  present  time. 

Of  course,  these  are  not  sharply  marked  periods : 
O.E.  passes  gradually  into  M.E.,  and  this  into 
Modern.  In  fact,  it  is  usual  to  subdivide  the  above 
three  great  periods  into  First  Transition  (from  O.E. 
to  M.E.),  1100-1200;  from  1200-1300  we  speak  of 
Early  M.E. ;  and  from  1300-1400  Late  M.E.  Then 
we  have  another  Transition  Period  (from  M.E.  to 
Mod.),  from  1400  (the  year  in  which  Chaucer  died) 
to  1475  (the  year  in  which  Caxton  began  to  print), 


THE  INVADING  ENGLISH  113 

or  to  the  end  of  the  century.  Again,  we  speak  of 
Tudov  English  or  Eavly  Modern,  from  1500-1650,  or 
thereabouts. 

I.    The  Old  English  Period. 

The  •  English '  tribes,  which  included  Angles, 
Saxons,  and  Jutes,  began  to  settle  and  fight  their 
way  up  the  rivers  and  along  the  coasts  from  about 
the  first  half  of  the  fifth  century.  They  came  from 
the  North  of  Germany,  from  near  the  mouth  of  the 
Elbe,  and  they  found  in  Britain  a  race  superior  to 
them  in  civilization,  and  in  spiritual  and  intellectual 
development— a  Celtic  race  who  spoke  a  language 
some  form  of  which  was  the  ancestor  of  Modern 
Welsh.  The  English  drove  the  Welsh  more  and 
more  westwards,  but  they  probably  incorporated  a 
good  number  among  their  own  race ;  for  from  them 
the  EngHsh  acquired  a  large  number  of  words,  mostly, 
it  is  true,  of  Latin  origin,  and  the  Welsh  also  learned 
a  fair  number  of  words  from  English.  This  implies 
that  the  two  races  had  some  considerable  and  pro- 
longed contact  with  each  other.  But  the  EngUsh 
renamed  practically  the  whole  country  in  which  they 
lived,  all  except  the  extreme  West— Cornwall  and 
Devonshire,  and  what  we  still  call  Wales. 

Dialects  of  Old  English.— All  these  tribes  spoke 
the  same  language,  with  more  or  less  sHght  dialectal 
differences.  The  Angles  divided  into  the  North- 
umbrians and  the  Mercians,  the  former  of  which 
occupied  the  North,  down  to  the  Humber ;  the  latter 
the  Midlands,  between  the  Humber  and  the  Thames. 
The  Saxons  settled  all  the  South,  except  the  Isle  of 

8 


114  THE  HISTORY  OF  LANGUA(;E 

Wight,  part  of  Hampshire,  and  Kent,  which  were 
peopled  by  the  Jutes. 

There  were  thus  four  chief  dialectal  types  of  O.E. — 
Northumbrian,  Mercian  (which,  although  presenting 
certain  differences,  are  often  grouped  together  as 
Anglian),  Saxon,  and  Kentish. 

These  dialects  were  each  at  different  times  in  the 
ascendant,  according  as  the  group  which  spoke  it 
were  politically  important ;  but  from  the  ninth  century 
onwards  the  West  Saxon  government  and  the  West 
Saxon  dialect  won  and  maintained  supremacy  over 
the  others.  This  was  chiefly  due  to  the  genius  of 
King  Alfred. 

The  Mission  of  St.  Augustine. — St.  Augustine, 
afterwards  the  first  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  came 
to  England  during  the  closing  years  of  the  sixth 
century,  and  was  allowed  by  King  Ethelbert  of  Kent 
to  live  in  Canterbury  and  preach  Christianity.  Ethel- 
bert himself  embraced  the  new  religion,  and  most  of 
his  people.  From  Kent  Christianity  spread,  until, 
in  less  than  a  hundred  years  after  the  coming  of 
Augustine  and  his  monks,  the  whole  of  England  was 
Christian.  It  need  hardly  be  said  that  the  Welsh  or 
British  Inhabitants  of  these  Islands  were,  for  the  most 
part,  Christians  before  the  coming  of  the  English. 

The  Coming  of  the  Danes. — In  the  year  ySy 
piratical  rovers  from  Scandinavia  first  visited  England, 
and  for  more  than  a  hundred  years  continued  to 
make  onslaughts,  for  the  sake  of  pillage,  upon  various 
parts  of  the  coast.  Later  on,  they  landed  consider- 
able forces,  and  overran  the  country.  For  instance, 
in  840  thirty-five  shiploads  of  Danes  landed  in 
Dorset ;  in  851  three  hundred  and  fifty  ships  came  up 


THE  DANES  115 

the  Thames  ;  and,  apparently  for  the  first  time,  the 
heathen  wintered  in  England  that  year.  From  this 
time  onwards  King  Ethelwulf  of  Wessex,  and  his 
sons  after  him,  were  continually  fighting  the  Danes, 
until  the  youngest,  Alfred  the  Great,  finally  reduced 
them  to  submission  in  878.  The  southern  part  of 
Northumbria  and  Mercia  had  already  been  invaded 
and  settled  by  Norsemen  ;  and  after  Alfred's  victory 
over  that  part  of  the  host  which  had  invaded  Wessex, 
this  section  accepted  Christianity  and  settled  in  East 
Anglia.  In  the  course  of  time  those  Danes  who 
remained  in  England  became  absorbed  into  the 
English  population  and  acquired  the  English  lan- 
guage, whose  vocabulary,  however,  they  influenced  to 
a  considerable  extent  {cf,  pp.  158  and  165-6). 

More  than  a  hundred  years  later  a  fresh  army,  led 
by  the  terrible  Svein,  again  invaded  this  country  and 
plunged  it  into  bloodshed.  Our  miserable  King, 
Ethelred,  after  vainly  trying  to  purchase  peace  with 
gold,  fled  to  Normandy  in  1013.  He  returned,  how- 
ever, the  following  year,  on  the  sudden  death  of 
Svein,  and  endeavoured  to  win  back  the  country. 
Ethelred  himself  died  in  1016,  and  was  succeeded 
by  his  son  Edmund  Ironside,  a  man  of  a  very 
different  stamp.  Cnut,  the  son  of  Svein,  had  been 
elected  King  by  the  Danes,  and  after  many  battles 
with  Edmund,  it  was  agreed  that  they  should  divide 
the  country  between  them.  Edmund  died,  however, 
within  a  year,  and  Cnut  became  sole  King  of  Eng- 
land. Henceforward,  until  the  death  of  Harthacnut 
in  1042,  England  was  ruled  by  Danish  Kings. 

Norman  Influence. — After  the  death  of  Cnut's 
son  men  wanted  to  be  ruled  once  more  by  Kings  of 

8—2 


ii6  THE  HISTORY  OF  LANGUAGE 

their  own  blood,  and  the  pious  Edward,  known  as 
Confessor,  the  son  of  Ethelred,  was  called  back  to 
England  from  Normandy,  where  he  had  lived  from 
childhood.  Edward  was  half  a  Norman,  for  his 
mother  was  Emma,  known  in  England  as  ^Ifgifu, 
the  daughter  of  the  Norman  Duke.  With  the  reign 
of  Edward  Norman  influence  began,  for  he  was 
far  nearer  to  his  mother's  people  than  to  the  English 
in  feeling,  and  filled  his  Court  with  Normans. 

2.  Transition  and  Middle  English  Period. 

The  invasion  of  England  by  the  Normans  resulted 
in  fundamental  changes  in  the  social  and  political 
life  of  the  people.  No  series  of  events  has  ever  had 
so  profound  an  effect  upon  our  language  as  those 
which  followed  the  coming  of  Duke  William  and  his 
followers.  The  Norm.ans,  originally  of  the  same 
race,  known  to  the  English  as  *  Danes,'  who  so  long 
wrought  havoc  in  this  country  under  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  Kings,  had  settled  in  that  part  of  France 
known  as  Neustria,  under  their  leader  Rolf,  in  921. 
They  appear  rapidly  to  have  assimilated  the  language, 
customs,  and  methods  of  government  of  the  people 
among  whom  they  settled.  At  any  rate,  the  Conqueror 
and  his  Knights  were  thoroughly  French,  and  spoke 
a  northern  dialect  of  French  as  their  native  tongue. 
The  immediate  results  of  the  Norm^an  Conquest  were 
that  government  passed  out  of  the  hands  of  English- 
men into  those  of  Normans — Norman  Bishops  filled 
English  sees,  and  Norman  Barons  and  Knights  be- 
came the  principal  owners  of  land  in  England. 
Thus,  broadly  speaking,  we  may  say  that  the  land- 
owning and  official  classes  were  chiefly  Norman  in 


THE  PASSING  OF  O.E.   LITERARY  TRADITION    117 

blood,  and  therefore,  at  first,  in  language  also.  But 
Englishmen  naturally  clung  to  their  own  speech,  and 
even  continued  to  produce  literary  works  in  it.  The 
rapid  change  which  is  observable  in  the  style  and 
grammar  of  the  English  language  pretty  soon  after 
the  Conquest  is  probably  only  indirectly  due  to  this. 
We  must  remember  that  the  written  language  is 
always  more  old-fashioned  than  the  spoken  language, 
so  long  as  there  is  a  continued  literary  tradition. 
Old  English  probably  continued  to  be  written,  rather 
better  than  it  had  been  in  the  days  of  Alfred,  long 
after  the  spoken  language  had  changed  considerably 
in  inflexions  and  in  structure.  But  we  may  suppose 
that  the  literary  tradition  died  out  after  the  Conquest 
with  the  passing  of  the  older  generation,  so  that 
when  the  men  of,  say,  1100-1150  wrote,  instead  of 
following  the  old  literary  convention,  they  wrote 
much  more  as  they  spoke,  and  as  their  people,  indeed, 
had  spoken  for  a  long  time.  As  we  shall  see  later,  in 
spite  of  the  loss  of  elegance  (though  not  of  expressive- 
ness) and  the  dropping  of  many  inflexions  which 
characterized  Old  English  proper,  the  introduction 
of  Norman  French  words  into  English  writings  was 
rather  a  slow  process  {cf.  pp.  166,  etc.  below). 

Norman  French,  then,  and  English  continued  to 
be  spoken  for  a  long  time  side  by  side,  and  the 
former  became  more  and  more  the  official  language 
for  the  Court,  the  Law,  and  the  Government  generally. 

There  was  no  attempt  to  put  down  or  discounten- 
ance the  speaking  of  English.  The  Laws  of  William 
the  Conqueror  in  Norman  French  contain  many 
English  law  terms,  and  in  his  day  writs  were  issued 
in  English.     There  is  no  evidence  that  William  or 


ii8  THE  HISTORY  OF  LANGUAGE 

his  sons  knew  any  English  themselves,  but  it  is 
pretty  certain  that  Henry  II.  could  at  least  under- 
stand it  when  he  heard  it.  Gradually  the  racial 
distinctions  of  Englishman  and  Norman  faded  ;  they 
were  both  Englishmen  by  the  beginning  of  the 
fourteenth  century.  Men  of  Norman  origin  spoke 
English  quite  naturally,  as  well  as  French,  and  the 
English  also  learned  the  latter  language.  Latin  was 
used  in  charters  and  other  documents  more  frequently 
than  French  in  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  centuries. 

French  was  spoken  in  the  Law  Courts  and  in  Parlia- 
ment down  to  1362,  and  in  the  schools  until  1385, 
when,  says  a  writer  of  the  period,  *  children  leave  off 
French  and  construe  and  learn  in  English.'  However, 
for  300  years  Norman  French  had  a  life  of  its  own 
in  England,  and  thus  underwent  development  dis- 
tinct from  that  followed  by  the  Continental  form^. 
The  influence  which  this  language  exerted  upon 
English  was  a  direct  and  living  influence,  and  that 
influence  ceases  when  the  language  ceases  to  be 
spoken.  We  may  take  it  that  it  w^as  dead  before  the 
year  1400. 

Other  direct  linguistic  influences  of  the  M.E. 
period  are  Central  French.  English  alone  remained, 
deeply  penetrated  with  Norman  French  words,  a 
dialect  different  in  many  respects  from  Norman 
French,  which  came  in  through  royal  marriages  and 
from  the  frequent  presence  of  Englishmen  in  France 
on  warlike  expeditions,  and  some  slight  ItaUan  and 
Arabic  influence  derived  from  the  Crusaders.  Of 
indirect  influences,  Latin  must  be  mentioned  as 
having  at  all  times  been  a  more  or  less  fruitful  source 
of  enrichment  for  our  vocabulary. 


DIALECTAL  VARIETY  IN  MIDDLE  ENGLISH    119 

The  Dialects  of  M.E. — The  four  main  types  which 
we  noted  as  existing  in  O.E.  are  represented  in  M.E., 
and  the  diversity  seems  to  be  intensified.      Almost 
every  author,  even  in  the  same  province,  differs  more 
or  less  from  almost  every  other.     The  reason  for  the 
apparent  increase  of  dialectal  variety  in  the  M.E. 
period  may  be  partly  due  to  the  lack  of  a  more  or 
less  fixed  tradition  of  spelHng,  such  as  existed  in 
late  O.E.,  and  which  doubtless   covered  up    many 
existing  differences.      The  curious  thing  is  that  the 
peculiarities  of  the  Modern  English  dialects  can  only 
be  traced  to  M.E.  types  in  very  few  cases,  and,  apart 
from  the  mixture  of  dialect  elements  which  exists  in 
the  Standard  Language,  and  which  can  be  to  some 
extent   disentangled,    and    from    such    well-marked 
features  as  occur  in  the  Northern  English  and  Scotch 
dialects,  it  seems  as  if  the  M.E.  Regional  Dialects 
had  been,  as  it  were,  melted  down  to  a  widespread 
uniform   type,   which   developed    anew   fresh    local 
varieties  in  the  Modern  period.      For  instance,  the 
Kentish  dialect  is  one  of  the  most  clearly  marked 
and    characteristic    types    down   to   the    fourteenth 
century.     But  the  modern  dialect  of  Kent  has  pre- 
served not  a  single  distinguishing  feature  of  Middle 
Kentish,    except    such    as   were    incorporated    into 
Standard  Enghsh,  and  which  have  remained  there 
to  this  day. 

3.  The  Modern  Period. 

The  Rise  of  Standard  English. 

Out  of  the  variety  of  the  M.E.  dialects  there 
emerges,  at  the  beginning  of  the  Modern  Period,  or 
just  before  it,  a  form  of  English  which  is  destined  to 


I20  THE  HISTORY  OF  LANGUAGE 

have  a  wonderful  history,  for  it  becomes,  first,  the 
form  in  which  all  English  literature  in  future  is 
written,  and,  secondly,  the  main  spoken  form 
throughout  the  country. 

The  questions  to  be  answered  with  regard  to  this 
form  of  English  are :  (i)  What  are  its  characteristic 
dialectal  features  ?  (2)  Where  did  it  arise  ?  (3)  How 
did  it  obtain  its  widespread  currency  and  prestige  ? 

We  may  briefly  answer  these  questions  in  the 
above  order : 

I.  Dialectal  Features  of  Standard  English. — 
If  we  compare  Standard  Spoken  English  of  to-day, 
or  the  recognized  written  form  of  English,  with  the 
various  dialects  of,  let  us  say,  the  thirteenth  century, 
we  find  that  they  resemble  most  closely  the  East 
Midland  type  of  Middle  English — that  is,  that  in  the 
main  Modern  Standard  English  is  what  thirteenth- 
century  East  Midland  might  have  been  expected  to 
develop  into.  But  we  find  also  that  Modern  English 
contains  certain  features  peculiar  to  the  thirteenth- 
century  dialect  of  Kent ;  others,  though  not  many, 
which  resemble  more  closely  the  Saxon  type  of  speech 
(cf.  e.g.  pp.  135  and  180)  of  the  same  period,  and  a  few 
peculiarities  which  seem  to  belong  to  the  North.  It 
is  clear  that  Standard  English  is  not  the  representa- 
tive of  any  single,  pure,  Regional  M.E.  type,  but  is  a 
mixture  of  several.  It  appears  that  the  language  of 
Chaucer  (fourteenth  century),  itself  a  mixed  type,  is 
a  form  of  English  which  may  be  regarded  as  being  to 
a  great  extent,  though  not  completely,  the  ancestor  of 
Modern  Standard  English.  Chaucer's  English  con- 
tains more  purely  Southern,  or  Saxon,  features  than 
ours  does. 


THE  MIXED  DIALECT  OF  THE  METROPOLIS   121 

2.  The  Place  of  Origin  of  Standard  English.— 

Chaucer's  English  is,  in  the  main,  the  English  of 
London,  more  particularly  that  of  the  Court  of  his 
day.  There  are  many  other  documents,  public  and 
private,  written  in  London  about  the  same  time,  which 
have  been  preserved.  There  are  documents  written 
in  London  which  go  back  a  century  earlier  than 
Chaucer.  The  dialect  of  these  documents  is  also 
of  a  mixed  dialect  type,  only  the  Southern  elements 
are  stronger  the  further  we  go  back.  It  appears,  then, 
that  London  legal  documents  between  the  twelfth 
and  fourteenth  centuries,  the  works  of  Chaucer,  and 
Modern  Standard  English,  are  all  characterized  by  a 
mixture  of  dialect ;  that  the  mixture  in  each  case  is 
very  much  the  same,  except  that  as  time  goes  on 
the  purely  Southern  elements  become  less  numerous, 
their  place  being  taken  by  Midland  elements. 

Other  writings— ^.^.,  those  of  Wycliffe,  which  ema- 
nated from  Oxford  about  the  same  time  as  those  of 
Chaucer  were  being  produced — also  show  a  blend 
of  Midland  and  Southern  elements.  It  is  believed 
that  from  these  two  great  types  of  speech — that  of 
London,  the  centre  of  Law,  Government,  and  Com- 
merce, and  that  of  Oxford,  the  centre  of  learning 
and  culture— the  Standard  English  which  we  all 
write,  and  which  we  all  try,  at  any  rate,  to  speak,  has 
grown  up.  It  is  not  surprising  that  in  Oxford,  the 
meeting-place  of  scholars,  and  in  London,  the  home 
of  Government,  the  seat  of  the  Court,  the  mart  of  the 
kingdom,  forms  of  speech  should  arise  which  were 
not  the  original  Regional  Dialects  of  the  two  centres, 
but  which  included  features  of  all  the  chief  dialect 
types.     Again,  the  geographical  position  of  London 


122  THE  HISTORY  OF  LANGUAGE 

exposes  it  to  the  direct  linguistic  contact  of  the 
South,  of  Kent,  and  of  the  Midlands.  The  problem 
which  confronts  us,  in  considering  the  origin  of 
Present-day  English,  is  to  determine  the  sources  of 
its  various  dialectal  elements.  As  for  the  modern 
provincial  dialects,  in  the  comparatively  few  cases 
where  these  differ  considerably  from  the  Standard 
Language,  we  shall  be  disappointed  if  we  expect  to 
find  that  they  preserve  some  characteristic  feature 
of  this  or  that  M.E.  Regional  Dialect.  In  the  vast 
mxajority  of  cases,  the  differences  of  the  modern  dialects 
appear  to  have  arisen,  during  the  Modern  Period,  out 
of  divergences  from  a  form  of  English  almost  identical 
with  that  from  which  Standard  English  has  sprung. 
3.  The  Spread  of  the  Standard  Dialect. — During 
the  fifteenth  century  the  London  type  was  gradually 
spreading  as  the  language  of  legal  documents,  wills, 
etc.,  throughout  all  parts  of  England,  so  that 
speakers  of  all  dialects,  provided  they  could  read, 
were  made  more  or  less  familiar  with  it.  Again, 
the  works  of  Chaucer  were  widely  read,  and  found 
many  imitators.  This  only  shows  that  there  was  a 
growing  tendency  to  adopt  a  uniform  mode  of  writing 
English.  There  is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  men 
tried  to  speak  as  they  wrote  ;  on  the  contrary,  there 
is  good  evidence  that  provincial  varieties  of  speech 
still  flourished.  Already  in  the  fourteenth  century 
that  form  of  Northern  English  spoken  in  Scotland 
had  attained  a  sufficient  degree  of  individuality  to 
be  regarded  as  a  separate  group  of  dialects — Scots, 
as  contrasted  with  English.  Scotland,  therefore, 
henceforth  develops  a  literary  language  of  its  own, 
quite  independent  of  England. 


DISSEMINATION  OF  STANDARD  ENGLISH    123 

In  the  third  quarter  of  the  fifteenth  century  the 
introduction  of  printing  gave  a  still  further  and 
wider  currency  to  the  London  dialect ;  for  all  books 
were  printed  in  it,  and  henceforth  no  English  writer 
used  the  dialect  of  his  province  for  literary  purposes, 
but  acquired,  if  he  did  not  already  possess  it,  that 
form  of  English  in  which  the  business  of  the  realm 
was  conducted — the  form,  or  nearly  so,  in  which 
Chaucer  had  written,  and  which  the  labours  of 
Caxton  made  accessible  to  all. 

The  translation  of  the  Bible  by  Tyndale  (1525-1531), 
and,  a  little  later,  the  Prayer  Book,  must  be  counted 
among  the  w^orks  which,  universally  known,  up  and 
down  the  country,  must  have  contributed  to  spread 
the  knowledge  of  the  literary  form. 

But  the  same  form  of  English  which  became  the 
vehicle  of  literature  came  also  to  be  regarded  as  the 
best  and  most  '  correct '  form  of  Spoken  English.  At 
the  present  time,  some  variety  of  this  dialect  is 
almost  universal  among  all  educated  people.  It  was 
originally,  no  doubt,  a  Class  dialect,  primarily  that  of 
the  Court.  It  is  now  spoken  by  all  classes  who  have 
received  any  education. 

Of  course,  there  are  well-marked  varieties  of 
Standard  English,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  differ 
chiefly  in  pronunciation.  This  is  natural  in  the  case 
of  a  dialect  which  is  so  widely  spread.  Each  class 
and  each  province  into  which  it  penetrates  modify 
the  language  in  a  characteristic  way.  Still,  it  is  a 
fact  that  both  Regional  and  Class  Dialects  are  giving 
way  before  the  encroaching  Standard  English.  The 
reasons  for  this,  at  the  present  time,  are  not  far 
to  seek.     The  main  factor  in  obliterating  Regional 


i?4  THE  HISTORY  OF  LANGUAGE 

Dialects  is  our  system  of  Primary  Education,  which 
places,  in  schools  all  over  the  country,  teachers, 
trained  according  to  a  uniform  scheme,  whose  own 
pronunciation  and  general  way  of  speech  has  been 
carefully  supervised  in  Pupil  Teachers'  Colleges  or 
Training  Colleges.  Another  important  class  of 
speech  missionaries  are  the  Clergy  of  the  Church 
of  England;  and  last,  but  by  no  means  least  in 
importance  as  an  agent  in  smoothing  out  the  most 
marked  local  peculiarities  of  dialect,  is  the  wonderful 
increase  of  facilities  in  locomotion,  which  enables  the 
population  to  move  about  freely,  and  to  visit  easily 
districts  comparatively  far  removed  from  their  place 
of  abode.  A  uniform  literary  language  is  spread,  by 
means  of  the  Printing  Press,  quickly  and  thoroughl}^; 
uniformity  of  uttered  speech  is  attained  far  slower,  with 
much  more  difficulty,  and,  when  reached,  is  certain 
to  be  broken  up  again  by  new  tendencies  of  variation. 

The  M.E.  dialects  must  have  been  considerably 
weakened  in  their  individuality  by  such  a  mingling 
of  the  population  from  different  provinces  as  v/ould 
take  place  in  the  fifteenth  century,  during  the  Wars 
of  the  Roses ;  or  in  the  seventeenth  through  the  war 
between  King  Charles  and  his  Parliament. 

It  is  perhaps  necessary  to  point  out  that  the  spread 
of  a  certain  uniformity  of  speech  throughout  a  con- 
siderable portion  of  the  country  is  in  no  case  the 
result  of  a  tendency  of  different  dialects  to  converge 
towards  the  same  form,  or,  in  other  words,  to  grow  like 
each  other.  On  the  contrary,  it  always  means  that 
one  type  of  speech  is  being  acquired  over  a  large  area 
by  persons  who  are,  by  that  very  process,  giving  up 
their  former  type  of  dialect. 


THE  VOYAGERS  125 

The  Revival  of  Learning. 

With  the  closing  years  of,  the  fifteenth  century, 
what  was  known  as  the  New  Learning  spread  to 
England  from  Italy.  With  the  introduction  of 
Greek  into  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  a  new  era  began 
in  Religion,  Philosophy,  Art,  and  Letters.  The  new 
ideas  and  aspirations  thus  awakened  in  men's  minds 
demanded  an  expression  which  could  best  be  found 
in  those  classical  languages  which  enshrined  the 
culture  that  was  now  fermenting  afresh,  and  with 
new  power,  in  England.  Hence,  Greek  and  Latin 
elements  filter  into  our  language  in  the  Tudor  period, 
not  only  because  they  were  necessary  to  the  new  needs, 
but  also  because  these  languages  were  so  zealously 
cultivated,  that  scholars  borrowed,  perhaps  some- 
times unconsciously,  from  them,  when  plain  English 
would  have  sufficed  quite  well.  This  influence  lasted 
for  a  long  time — in  fact,  it  lingers  on  still — and  the 
English  style  of  such  writers  as  Bacon  or  Sir  Thomas 
Browne  is  stiff  with  Latin  words  that  have  never 
been  naturalized. 

During  the  sixteenth  century,  not  only  was  the 
interest  in  classical  learning  revived,  but  the  modern 
languages  and  literatures  of  Italy  and  Spain  were 
known  and  studied  by  many  Englishmen.  Travel 
in  Italy  was  fashionable,  and  political  events  brought 
England  and  Englishmen  into  close  touch  with 
Spaniards.  French  was  now,  as  always,  known  by 
the  upper  classes. 

While  scholars,  statesmen,  and  men  of  letters 
were  enriching  the  fund  of  national  ideas  from  redis- 
covered  worlds   of  thought,   men    of  action — navi- 


126  THE  HISTORY  OF  LANGUAGE 

gators,  fighters,  and  settlers — were  discovering  new 
worlds  beyond  the  sea,  and  bringing  home  wonderful 
tales  of  'feathered  peoples,'  countries  'roofed  with 
gold,'  as  well  as  new  and  delicious  fruits,  and  herbs 
and  spices  with  strange  and  outlandish  names.  By 
no  means  without  their  importance  for  the  English 
language  were  the  adventurous  voyages  of  Raleigh, 
Drake,  and  Frobisher. 

The  characteristic  of  the  Modern  Period  of  English 
history  has  been  Colonial  expansion  in  every  quarter 
of  the  globe.  The  effect  of  this  has  been  to  bring 
us  into  contact  not  only  with  new  ideas  of  Society, 
Religion,  and  Government,  but  also  with  an  extra- 
ordinary variety  of  races  and  languages,  most  of 
which  have  added  something  to  our  vocabulary — 
the  names  of  animals,  products,  or  institutions. 


CHAPTER  IX 

ENGLISH  SOUND  CHANGES  OF  THE  PAST 

Now  that  we  have  seen  what  are  the  principal  ways 
in  which  we  ascertain  the  nature  of  the  sounds  used 
in  earher  periods  of  our  language,  and  have  further 
distinguished  the  chief  periods  of  development  into 
which  English  may  conveniently  be  divided,  we  may 
proceed  to  note  some  of  the  most  important  sound 
changes  which  have  occurred  during  its  past  history. 

We  saw,  in  an  earlier  chapter  of  this  book  (pp.  71-81), 
that  at  the  present  time  certain  sound  changes,  both 
of  an  Isolative  and  of  a  Combinative  character,  are 
actually  in  progress  in  our  own  pronunciation,  and 
throughout  its  whole  history  the  English  language 
has  been  subject  to  tendencies  of  change  of  either 
class.  What  we  can  now  observe  in  contemporary 
English  speech  is  nothing  new,  it  has  always  been 
so :  English  is  changing  now,  as  it  changed  in  the 
Past,  and  as  it  will  continue  to  change  in  the 
Future. 

The  account,  description,  or  statement  of  a 
change  of  sound  which  takes  place  at  a  given  period 
in  the  history  of  a  language  is  called  a  Sound  Law, 
or  a  Law  of  Sound  Change. 

A  knowledge  of  the  Sound  Laws  of  a  language  is 
127 


128     ENGLISH  SOUND  CHANGES  OF  THE  PAST 

one  very  vital  element  in  the  study  of  its  histor}^  It 
cannot  be  emphasized  too  strongly  that  in  consider- 
ing the  development  of  English,  or  of  any  other 
language,  we  must  pay  the  strictest  regard  to  the 
facts  of  sound  change.  A  guiding  principle  of 
philological  method  is  that  Sound  Laws  admit  of 
no  exceptions.  This  axiom  means  that  when  we 
have  discovered,  from  the  evidence  of  a  sufficient 
number  of  examples,  that  in  a  given  dialect,  at  a 
given  time,  a  certain  sound,  under  certain  conditions, 
tends  to  change  in  a  particular  direction,  we  are 
not  justified  in  assuming  that  this  is  not  invariably 
the  case.  It  will  not  do  to  suppose  that  in  the  same 
dialect,  at  the  same  time,  there  can  be  two  different 
tendencies  at  work  upon  the  same  sound.  If  we  find 
what  appear  to  be  exceptions  to  Sound  Laws,  it 
means  either  that  our  Sound  Law  has  been  im- 
perfectly stated,  that  we  have  not  reckoned  with  all 
the  conditions,  that  the  supposed  '  exception '  is 
borrowed  from  another  dialect,  or,  lastly,  that  the 
principle  known  as  Analogy  has  been  at  work  in  this 
particular  case,  and  that  the  sound  in  the  word  in 
question  is  not  the  result  of  ordinary  sound  change 
at  all,  but  owes  its  form  to  association  with  some 
other  word  or  group  of  words. 

A  disregard  for  these  strict  scientific  methods  of 
dealing  with  the  history  of  language  has  produced  in 
the  past  much  misleading  statement,  and  vitiates  a 
great  deal  of  the  amateur  etymology-making,  which 
is  still  not  infrequent. 

It  may  be  as  well  to  state  here,  that  at  the  present 
time  there  are  in  England,  Germany,  and  Scandinavia, 
a  large  number  of  scholars  engaged  in  investigating 


AIMS  OF  HISTORICAL  STUD^Y^,|^^      129 

in  great  detail  the  development  of  English  sounds 
in  all  ages  and  in  all  dialects.  The  aim  of  the 
Science  of  Historical  Linguistics,  as  applied  to 
Enghsh,  is,  amongst  other  things,  to  discover  all  the 
sound  changes  v/hich  have  taken  place  in  English, 
in  all  its  dialects,  from  the  earliest  period  up  to  the 
present  day. 

In  a  little  book  for  beginners,  like  the  present, 
only  a  few  of  the  results  of  the  labour  of  all  these 
workers  can  be  laid  before  the  student. 

English,  as  it  now  exists,  is  the  outcome  of 
hundreds  of  years  of  development,  and  some  of  those 
sound  changes  which  took  place  in  past  ages,  and 
whose  traces  are  still  discernible  in  our  own  speech, 
may  with  advantage  be  stated  as  briefly  as  possible. 
The  simple  but  important  principle  to  be  borne  in 
mind  is,  that  if  two  closely  related  words  show 
differences  in  sound  {cf.  pp.  82,  ^^  above),  something 
must  have  happened  to  one  in  the  past  which  did  not 
happen  to  the  other.  Our  business  is  to  discover 
what  it  was,  and  why  it  happened. 

Combinative  Changes  which  occurred  in  the 
Old  English  Period. 

{a)  Changes  in  the  Nature  of  Vowels.— On  pp.  82, 

83  above  (2,  a)  there  is  a  list  of  pairs  of  words  in 
Modern  English  which  have  quite  different  vowel 
sounds,  although  closely  related,  and  in  some  cases 
being  merely  the  Singular  and  Plural  forms  re- 
spectively of  the  same  word.  Nothing  that  we  know 
of,  or  can  learn  from,  Modern  English  will  explain 
the  reason  for  the  different  vowels  in  7nouse  and  micey 

9 


I30     ENGLISH  SOUND  CHANGES  OF  THE  PAST 

etc.     Indeed,  in  the  oldest  written  documents  which 
we  possess  (seventh  century)  in  English  the  difference 
in  this  or  in  similarly  related  pairs  of  words  is  already 
defined.  Thus,  O.E.  has  inils,  '  mouse,'  in  the  Singular 
and  mf/s  in  the  Plural;  /;/,  '  foot ';  fit,  '  feet,'  and  so  on. 
By  comparison  with  other  languages,  however,  we  are 
able  to  assert  positively  that  the  Plural  was  originally 
milsi,  foti,  with  U  and  o  respectively  in  the  Plural  as 
in  the  Singular.    In  fact,  we  are  able  to  state  the  law 
as  follows:  When,  in  Primitive  O.K.,  the  vowel  -i- 
(pronounced   like    '  ee  ')    or   the   consonant   sound  j 
(pronounced  like  English  y  in  you)  follow  €c,  0,  in  the 
same  word,    these    vowels    become    respectively    J/ 
(pronounced  like  French  u   in   '  lune ')  and   e   (pro- 
nounced  like    French   e).      This    process    is   called 
Mutation ;  it  probably  took  place  in  England  in  the 
sixth  century.     The  nature  of  the  change  is  a  very 
simple  one.     All  the  vowels  which  underwent  it  (with 
one   exception)  were   hack  vowels  {i.e.,  pronounced 
with  the  back  of  the  tongue),  and  the  result  of  the 
process  was  that  they  were  replaced  by  vowels  pro- 
nounced with  the  front  of  the  tongue.     The  reason 
for  this  change  was  that  the  sounds  -i-  and  -j-  (de- 
scribed above)  were  front  sounds,  and  had  the  effect 
of  making  the  vowels  which   preceded   them    in   a 
word   into   front   vowels,   and    therefore    more   like 
themselves.     When  once   mys,  fet,  were   developed, 
they  remained  for  ever  distinct  from   the  singular 
forms,  and  developed  later  on  into  mice,  feet,  just  as 
the  singulars  developed   into  mouse,  foot.      All   the 
vowel  differences  in  the  pairs  in  the  list  on  p.  82  {a.  2.) 
were  produced  originally  in  this  way.     The  weih  fill 
(O.E.  fyllan)  was   derived   from    the  adjective  full, 


COMBINATIVE  CHANGES  IN  OLD  ENGLISH     131 

because  the  suffix  of  the  verb  was  formerly  -jan. 
Borough  is  from  an  old  nominative  burg  or  btirug, 
while  Bury  is  from  the  dative  of  the  same  word — 
O.E.  by  rig. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  celebrated  Saxon 
King  Hengist  lived  and  died  long  before  the  period 
of  mutation,  and  that  his  own  name  had  not  yet 
received  the  form  familiar  to  later  generations  during 
his  lifetime.     He  knew  himself  as  Hangist. 

In  all  cases  in  the  list,  the  words  which  contain 
front  vowels  (Mod.  Eng.  i,  ea,  e,  ee,  etc.),  or  the  so-called 
'  long  i ' — that  is,  the  diphthong  ai  ;  cf.  p.  35  {e) — are 
derived  from  the  form  found  in  those  cognates  which 
contain  back  vowels,  and  the  front  vowels  are  due  to 
the  existence  at  an  early  period  of  a  suffix  with  -i 
or  -j. 

(b)  Changes  in  Consonants  (see  b,  p.  82  above). — 
(i)  Such  differences  as  the  ^-sound  in  cock  compared 
with  the  *  c/i-sound  '  of  chicken  are  due  to  the  fact 
that  in  O.E.  k  was  retained  before  back  vowels  such 
as  0,  but  was  '  fronted  ' — that  is,  shifted  to  a  sound 
very  like  the  present  '  cA-sound  ' — before  front  vowels. 
Thus,  we  have  in  O.E.  cocc  (with  ^-sound),  but  c'lecen, 
where  the  initial  c  was  pronounced  almost  like  '  ch  ' 
before  the  vowel  l.  These  represent  two  different 
forms  of  the  same  '  root,'  the  vowel  difference  here 
being  far  older  than  the  O.E.  period,  as  we  shall  see 
later  on  (p.  197).  When  c  occurred  in  the  middle  of 
a  Vv'ord  in  O.E.,  it  remained  as  a  A:-sound  before  back 
vowels  and  some  consonants,  but  became  '  ch  '  before 
-i-  or  -j- ;  thus,  we  have  drink,  O.E.  (Infinitive)  drincan, 
but  drench,  from  Primitive  O.E.  dranki.  Similarly, 
both  consonants  in  cook,  O.E.  coc,  are  A;-sounds,  but  in 

9—2 


132     ENGLISH  SOUND  CHANGES  OF  THE  PAST 

kitchen,  early  O.E.  cycine,  the  *  -ch-sound'  developed  in 
the  middle  of  the  word. 

A  similar  explanation  accounts  for  the  difference 
in  the  final  sounds  of  hang  and  hinge.  The  latter 
had  a  -j-  suffix. 

(2)  Differences  of  Voice  and  Breath. — The  sounds 
s,  f,  and  th  seem,  to  have  been  voiceless  in  O.E. 
when  final,  but  to  have  been  voiced  between  vowels. 
Hence,  '  to  breathe  '  (with  voiced  th),  from  O.E.  hrcB])an 
{])  —  th),  but  breath,  from  brcey ;  wife,  O.E.  wif  (voice- 
less /),  but  in  the  oblique  cases  of  O.E.  wife,  dative 
singular,  wifum,  dative  plural,  etc.,  the  /  was  pro- 
nounced as  V.  Strange  to  say,  we  still  express  this 
difference  in  our  spelling,  preserving  thus  a  Middle 
English  spelling  with  v.  The  change  of  s — r,  as  in 
was — were,  etc.  {cf.  p.  83),  represents  an  original 
change  of  s — z ;  but  this  took  place  long  before  the 
O.E.  period,  and  was  due  to  a  difference  in  the 
position  of  the  accent. 


Changes  which  occurred  during  the  Middle 
English  Period. 

Perhaps  the  most  important  combinative  changes 
in  M.E.  which  have  left  important  traces  in  Present- 
day  English  were  changes  in  the  quantity  of  vowels. 
The  resulting  differences  in  the  modern  forms  are 
not  always  recognizable  as  mere  differences  of 
quantity,  so  diverse  was  the  subsequent  development 
of  the  same  vowel  according  to  whether  it  was  long 
or  short  in  M.E. 

{a)  Shortening   of  O.E.    Long  Vowels! — Long 


SHORTENING  OF  VOWELS  IN  MIDDLE  ENGLISH  133 

vowels  were  shortened  in  M.E.  (i)  before  more  than 
two  consonants.  Hence,  while  O.E.  clldy  *childj_-— — 
retained  its  long  vowel  in  M.E.  {-Id  being  favourable 
to  length  in  preceding  vowel),  the  plural-<:l/^n^  becomes 
chlldre,  and  the  short  vowel  undergoes  no  further 
change.  The  result  is  that  we  have  children,  and  the 
dialectal  childev.  On  the  other  hand,  the  long  f-sound 
of  M.E.  child  becomes  the  diphthong  of  Mod.  Eng. 
child.  There  is  no  difference  in  the  spelling,  but  the 
sounds  of  singular  and  plural  are  very  different. 

(2)  Most  groups  of  two  consonants  have  the 
faculty  of  shortening  a  preceding  long  vowel  in  M.E. 
A^lewexamples  of  such  shortenings  are — before  two  -^ 
stops:  kepte,  'kept,'  compared  with  kepen,  'keep'; 
before  stop  +  open  consonants :  depthe,  *  depth,' 
compared  with  depe,  '  deep  ' ;  hekir^'vp^n^i^^GrT^UttnTiir'''''*''^ 
+  stop:  O.E.  softe,  'soft,'  M.E.  softe  (the  Moderi 
pronunciation  with  the  '  aw  '-sound  in  tliis^word  is 
the  result  of  a  recent  lengthening  process);  before 
open  consonants  and  I :  gosling,  compared  with  gOs, 
'  goose.'  Here  the  long  6  of  gos  has  normally 
developed  in  Mod.  Eng.  ?7,  but  the  short  0  has 
remained  unchanged.  Shortening  took  place,  further, 
before./  followed  by  ,aa.opeja..GQ.n^Qriant::::;::;M.E.  filthe, 
'filth,'  compared  with  M.E.  verb  fllen,  'to  defile.' 
Here  the  short  t  has  remained  in  filth,  but  the  long  I 
of  the  verb  has  become  the  Mod.  Eng.  diphthong  in 
*  defile: 

The  application  of  the  rules  which .  th-^.e^examjgles 
illustrate  will  explain  the  differences  that  exist  in  a 
large  number  of  words  of  the  same  class  as  the  pairs 
on  p.  82  (a)  above. 

{b}  Lengthening  of   O.E.   Short  Vowels.— The 


134    ENGLISH  SOUND  CHANGES  OF  THE  PAST 

most  important  case  is  that  which  involves  the 
vowel  of  the  first  syllable  in  two-syllabled  words 
when  only  a  single  consonant  intervenes  between 
the  first  and  second  syllable.  O.E.  na-ma,  ho-pii 
(hope),  etc.,  appear  to  have  been  divided  as  shown, 
so  that  the  stressed  vowel  stood  in  an  open  syllable — 
that  is,  had  no  consonant  after  it  in  the  same  S3dlable-. 
Short  vowels  in  this  position  were  lengthened  by  the 
middle  of  the  thirteenth  century.  Thus,  the  above 
words  in  early  M.E.  were  still  7m;;ze,  hope.  Similarly, 
'  to  eat '  was  Pten,  and  so  on ;  but  these  words 
became  later  name,  hope,  eten.  Concerning  the  later 
development  of  these  long  vowels  in  Mod.  Eng.,  see 
under  that  heading  (i,  2,  and  4,  h  below).  It  some- 
times happens  that  the  Mod.  Eng.  word  is  not  derived 
from  the  old  nominative,  in  cases  where  this  had 
only  one  S3dlable,  but  from  an  inflected  case  which 
had"  two.  Thus,  Mod.  Eng.  late  can  only  be  from 
M.E.  late,  itself  from  earlier  late,  and  not  from  O.E. 
Icet,  M.E.  lat. 

This  lengthening  process  does  not  affect  the  old 
vowels  I  and  ?/,  only  a,  e,  0, 

Isolative  Change  in  M.E. 

The  most  remarkable  change  of  this  class  which 
took  place  in  early  M.E.  (circa  iioo)  was  that  which 
affected  O.E.  a  (pronounced  like  the  first  vowel  m 
Mod.  Eng.  father).  This  sound  (a)  became  a  variety 
of  o  sound  in  the  South  and  Midlands;  thus,  O.E. 
ham,  '  home,'  ban,  *  bone,'  stan,  '  stone,'  hlaf,  '  loaf,' 
became  M.E.  ston,  bon,  hOm,  lof.  It  sometimes 
happens  that  the  O.E.  a  was  shortened  before  it  had 


ISOLATIVE  CHANGES  IN  MIDDLE  ENGLISH    135 

become  0,  and  the  result  is  that  it  then  remained  a 
short  vowel  with  very  little  change  until  the  Modern 
period.  Thus,  in  the  old  compound  Stanlcehj  literally 
'  Stony  field,'  '  Stony  lea,'  the  a  was  shortened  in 
early  M.E.,  giving  the  form  Stanlei  [p.  133  (2)] ;  whence 
Present-day  Stanley,  instead  of  '  Stoneley.'  Such  a 
name  as  Stoneleigh,  which  is  found,  is  a  new  com- 
pound of  the  two  independent  words  stone  and  high, 
and  not  the  descendant  of  an  old  formation. 

In  the  North  of  England  and  in  Scotland  O.K.  a 
did  not  become  0,  but  developed  into  a  sound  some- 
thing like  that  in  Mod.  Eng.  *hat,'  only  long.  This 
sound  subsequently  became  e  (like  French  e),  and 
this  is  the  sound  which  we  find  in  Mod.  Scotch 
and  the  Northern  dialects  of  England.  The  above 
words  are  popularly  written  hame,  stane,  bane,  to 
express  the  Scotch  pronunciation.  The  English 
hale,  '  strong,  healthy,'  etc.  ('  hale  and  hearty '),  is 
simply  a  Northern  form  of  O.E.  hdl,  which  in  the 
South  became  hdl  in  M.E.,  and  survives  as  whole  in 
Present-day  English,  with  a  quite  unnecessary  w  in 
the  spelling.  In  the  same  way  road  is  the  Southern 
and  raid  the  Northern  form  of  O.E.  rdd  (connected 
with  *to  ride^).  In  this  case  the  meaning  is  also 
different. 

Principal  Sound  Changes  since  the  M.E.  Period. 

These  are  chiefly  isolative,  and  affect  the  long 
vowels.  Of  the  short  vowels,  only  two  have  under- 
gone change. 

(i)  M.E.  a  ('as  in  father')  has  become  what  is 
popularly  called  the  '  long  a-sound '  (c/.  p.  35  {d),  ante): 


136    ENGLISH  SOUND  CHANGES  OF  THE  PAST 

M.E.   name — name;  gate — gate;   blame — blame.     No 
change  has  taken  place  in  speUing. 

(2)  M.E.  e  (as  in  French  e)  has  become  'ee'  (as  in 
'speed').  Here,  again,  no  change  has  occurred  in 
the  spelHng  as  a  rule.  Mod.  Eng.  feet,  greet,  deem, 
sheet,  he,  cheese,  etc.,  are  all  of  this  origin. 

Another  sound  in  M.E.,  often  written  e,  but  also 
ea,  which  was  different  from  the  above  and  more  like 
FrcHch  e  in  tete,  has  also  developed  in  most  dialects 
of  English  into  the  '  ee  '-sound.  Words  of  this  origin 
are  generally  spelt  with  ea  in  Mod.  Eng.  It  will 
be  observed  that  in  the  *  Irish  Brogue '  such  words 
as  beat,  heat,  lead  (verb),  etc.,  are  usually  pronounced 
with  a  sound  like  French  c,  while  he,  bee,  seed,  heed, 
etc.,  as  often  with  the  English  pronunciation.  This 
means  that  Irish  English  preserves  an  original 
distinction  of  sound,  which  lasted  down  to  the 
seventeenth  century  in  this  country,  but  was  then 
lost. 

(3)  M.E.  ^  (pronounced  like  Modern  ^ ce')  has  been 
diphthongized  to  ai  (the  '  long  f-sound  ' :  cf.  p.  35  (e), 
ante)  :  wlf — wife  ;  llf — life  ;  nin — nine,  etc.  No  change 
in  the  spelling  marks  the  change  of  sound. 

(4)  M.E.  0,  which  symbol  expressed  two  distinct 
sounds,  preserves  the  distinction  in  the  modern 
language. 

(a)  M.E.  ^  =  the  sound  in  French  beau,  etc., 
has  become  ft  (that  is,  the  '  00  '-sound,  as  in  moon) : 
M.K.  sone — soon;  col — cool;  stol — stool,  etc.  Words 
like  book,  hook,  good,  and  others  spelt  with  00,  but 
pronounced — in  the  South  of  England,  at  any  rate — 
with  the  ?/-sound  of  '  put,'  also  had  this  0  originally, 
and  developed  ft,  but  underwent   shortening   com- 


VOWEL  CHANGES  IN  MODERN  PERIOD       137 

paratively  recently  (eighteenth  century).  In  goose 
we  have  the  result  of  this  o;  in  gosling  it  was 
shortened  before  it  became  u  {cf.  pp.  133  (2)  and  136 
(4)  above). 

(6)  The  other  M.E.  0  which  had  the  sound  of  Mod. 
Eng.  '  aw  '  has  become  what  we  now  call  '  long  0,' 
but  what  is  really  a  diphthong  {cf.  p.  34  {b),  ante)  : 
M.E.  horn — home;  ban — bone;  throte — throat,  etc. 

[N.B.— The  student  will  note,  in  reading  Chaucer, 
that  this  poet  keeps  the  two  e's  and  the  two  o's 
distinct  in  rhyming,  and  does  not  make  one  rhyme 
with  the  other.] 

(5)  M.E.  u,  often  written  on.  {cf.  p.  142  {b,  1) 
below),  has  been  diphthongized  to  an  {cf  p.  34  {a) 
above):  M.E.  cil  or  cou — cow  ;  nCt  or  nou — now;  has 
or  hous — honse,  etc. 

[N.B.— The  diphthongizing  of  M.E.  ^  and  ?7  began 
in  the  sixteenth  century.] 

(6)  M.E.  u,  and  the  long  u  dealt  with  in  No.  4  {a) 
above,  which  developed  out  of  earlier  0,  when 
shortened  to  u  shortly  after  the  beginning  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  both  underwent,  in  the  seventeenth 
century,  a  change  to  a  sound  not  unlike  that  in 
Present-day  cut,  but,  into  which  it  soon  passed. 
Original  M.E.  it  is  represented  by  this  sound  in 
Mod.  Eng.  dull,  sun,  run,  hunt,  etc. ;  also  in  come,  son, 
etc,  (For  the  spelling  0  in  these  words,  cf.  p.  146  (3) 
below.) 

Sixteenth-century  u  from  i~t,  which  in  its  turn  had 
sprung  from  0,  has  acquired  the  same  sound  as  we 
find  in  but,  in  blood,  among,  flood,  etc. 

(7)  M.E.  a,  a  sound  like  that  in  German  '  mann,' 
acquired  in  the  seventeenth  century  what  we  now 


138     ENGLISH  SOUND  CHANGES  OF  THE  PAST 

call  the  'short  ^-sound,'  which  is  heard  in  cat,  had, 
can,  sat,  etc.  The  old  sound  still  survives  in  pro- 
vincial modes  of  speech,  especially  in  the  North 
Midlands  and  North  of  England. 

Changes  in  the  M.E.  Diphthongs. 

(i)  M.E.  au  (pronounced  like  the  diphthong  in 
house)  developed  during  the  seventeenth  century  into 
a  sound  approaching  the  Mod.  Eng.  *  aw  '-sound. 
The  spellings  au,  aw,  are  retained  in  words^  where 
the  new  sound  now  stands.  The  diphthong  occurred 
in  English  words  like  draw,  saw,  dawn,  daughter, 
taught,  etc.,  and  in  French  words  such  2iS  fault,  cause, 
vaunt,  etc. 

(2)  M.E.  ai,  ei  (pronounced  like  the  Modern  'long  i' 
sound),  lost  their  diphthongal  character  during  the 
seventeenth  century,  and  developed  subsequently 
on  the  same  lines  as  M.E.  a  {cf.  pp.  135,  136).  In 
common  with  this  sound  they  have  developed  into 
the  Mod.  Eng.  'long  a '-sound.  These  words  still 
retain  their  diphthongal  spelling,  ai,  or  ay.  Examples 
of  English  words  are  rain,  pail,  way,  day,  etc. ;  of 
French,  faith,  gay,  pay,  are  examples. 

These  are  some  of  the  chief  changes  in  the  vowels 
of  stressed  or  accented  syllables  which  have  taken 
place  during  and  since  the  M.E.  period. 

Vowels  of  the  Unaccented  Syllables. 

The  vowels  of  inflexional  syllables  in  O.E.  a,  e,  u, 
were  all  levelled  under  e  in  M.E.,  and  towards  the 
end  of  this  period,  probably  by  the  middle  of  the 
fifteenth  century,  the  unstressed  e  was  dropped  in 
pronunciation,  although  it  has  often  remained  to  the 


EFFECTS  OF  THE  CONQUEST  ON  ENGLISH    139 

present  day  in  the  spelling.  Examples  of  levelling 
under  e  and  subsequent  loss  of  this  are:  O.E. 
nama,  M.E.  ndme,  Mod.  Eng.  name;  O.E.  sumc,  M.E. 
s?me,  Mod.  Eng.  so7i  (often  written  sone  in  Early 
Modern) ;  O.E.  stdnas  (nom.  and  ace.  pL),  M.E. 
stones,  Mod.  Eng.  stones  (  =  *st6nz'  in  pronunciation). 

In  old  compounds  in  which  the  second  element 
was  originally  long,  and  stressed  as  strongly  as  the 
first  element,  this  second  element  gradually  lost  its 
independent  accent,  and  was  then  shortened.  Thus, 
Kingston  -  on  -  Tha.mes  was  originally  Kinges  tun  = 
'  the  King's  town ';  then  the  strong  stress  was  con- 
fined to  the  first  word  Kinges,  and  t/:e  vowel  of  tiin 
was  shortened.  This  is  the  reason  tor  the  modern 
pronunciation  of  Kingston.  Kingstov;n  in  Ireland, 
on  the  other  hand,  is  a  new  name,  created  afresh  out 
of  the  two  separate  words.  King's  town.  In  this 
name  the  second  element  is  always  pronounced  quite 
clearly  as  town. 

In  concluding  this  chapter  we  may  remark  that  it 
is  often  wrongly  suggested  that  the  changes  which 
occurred  in  the  passage  of  Old  into  Middle  English, 
as  they  affect  both  pronunciation  and  the  in- 
flexional system,  were  largely  due  to  the  influence 
of  the  Normans.  This  is  not  the  case,  for  there  is 
every  reason  to  believe  that  those  changes,  which 
are,  for  the  most  part,  first  expressed  in  the  spelling 
during  the  M.E.  period,  were  due  to  tendencies 
which  began  long  before,  as  part  of  the  natural 
development  of  English,  and  which  would  have  been 
carried  out  just  as  completely  if  there  had  been  no 
Norman  Conquest.  The  influence  of  this  event 
upon  the  vocabulary  is  an  entirely  different  question, 
as  will  be  shown  in  a  later  chapter. 


CHAPTER  X 

ENGLISH  SPELLING 

The  spelling  of  Modern  English  is  so  full  of 
curiosities  and  inconsistencies  that  a  short  account 
and  explanation  of  the  chief  of  these  seems  necessary. 

The  general  fact  that  our  spelling  is  so  far  behind 
our  pronunciation  results  from  the  comparatively 
early  fixing  of  the  former — at  the  end  of  the  fifteenth 
century,  with  the  introduction  of  Printing — and  the 
active  tendencies  of  changes  which  have  affected 
English  pronunciation  since  that  date.  This  early 
fossilization  of  the  spelling  accounts,  too,  for  some  of 
its  inconsistencies,  for  words  which  once  contained 
the  same  sounds  have  developed  differently,  while 
others  which  originally  contained  different  sounds 
have  now  levelled  these  under  one  and  the  same 
sound. 

But  another  reason  why  we  often  express  the 
same  sound  in  different  ways,  or,  on  the  other  hand, 
express  several  different  sounds  with  the  same 
symbol,  is  that  our  system  of  spelling  is  a  mixture 
of  a  method  inherited  from  O.E.  and  of  one  derived 
from  Northern  scribes.  A  third  cause  of  the  strange 
nature  of  some  of  our  spellings  is  a  deliberate 
attempt  to  make  them  reveal  the  etymology — that  is, 
to  throw  light  on  the  past  history  of  the  words. 

140 


NORMAN  FRENCH  SPELLINGS  141 

A  comparatively  small  residuum  of  words  may  be 
said  to  be  phonetic  in  spelling,  but  this  is  the  result 
of  accident.  Thus,  such  spellings  as  not,  hot,  sin, 
din,  lend,  spend,  and  the  majority  of  short  words 
which  contain  the  short  'o,'  'i,'  and  'e'  sounds,  do 
not  owe  their  regularity  of  spelling  to  any  design 
bestowed  upon  them,  but  not  upon  other  words, 
but  merely  to  the  fact  that  these  three  vowel  sounds 
have  remained  practically  unchanged  for  hundreds 
of  years. 

Norman-French  Influence. 

{a)  Consonants. 

1.  c  written  for  s.  This  is  found  not  only  in 
words  of  Norm.-Fr.  origin,  such  as  city,  face,  receive, 
but  also  in  a  few  English  words,  such  as  mice.  In 
M.E.,  c  is  written  oftener  than  at  present  to 
represent  the  sound  of  s  in  pure  English  words. 
Thus,  we  find  mice,  'wise';  cene,  'seen';  alee,  'also,'  etc. 

2.  gii  for  g.  Since  the  English  scribes  used  the 
latter  symbol  at  one  time  to  express  several  quite 
distinct  sounds,  French  scribes  found  it  convenient 
to  distinguish  the  back-stop  (as  in  '^ood')  from  the 
others  by  writing  gu  for  it.  We  have  not  many 
survivals  of  this  practice  now,  but  guess,  guest,  guild, 
may  be  mentioned.  Tongue  may  owe  its  spelling 
originally  to  this  common  habit,  for  we  often  find 
kingue,  etc.,  in  M.E.;  but  the  retention  of  this 
spelling  in  the  former  word  may  be  partly  owing  to 
the  spelling  langue  of  the  French  word  for  the  same 
thing.  In  M.E.  we  not  infrequently  find  'good' 
written  giwd,  etc. 


142  ENGLISH  SPELLING 

3.  V  for/.  This  was  a  convenient  French  device 
to  distinguish  the  voiced  from  the  voiceless  sound  : 
O.E.  wrote /for  both. 

4.  qu  for  O.E.  cw.  This  has  become  universal, 
and  was  a  natural  habit  to  adopt  from  the  moment 
that  the  symbol  c,  besides  the  association  with  the 
^-sound,  which  is  still  retained,  was  also  associated 
with  the  sound  of  s.  Examples  are  quick,  O.E. 
cwicu ;  queen,  O.E.  cwen;  quell,  O.E.  cwellan,  etc. 

5.  j  (initially)  for  the  *  dge  '-sound.  This  sound 
only  occurs  initially  in  M.E.  in  French  words,  and 
to  this  day  there  are  no  English  words  in  Standard 
English  which  have  the  sound  in  this  position.  In 
fact,  its  occurrence  initially  is  a  sure  test  of  Norman- 
French  origin — e.g.,  judge,  jest,  joy. 

The  word  jaw  appears  to  be  from  French  jone,  and 
the  vowel  sound  in  the  Modern  word,  which,  indeed, 
it  would  be  difficult  to  derive  from  French  ou,  is 
perhaps  influenced  by  that  of  M.E.  chawl,  from  O.E. 
ceafl,  'jaw,  muzzle.'  Mod.  Eng.  jowl,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  normal  as  regards  the  vowel  sound,  if 
derived  from  O.E.  ceafl,  but  the  voicing  of  the 
initial  consonant  can  only  be  explained  by  confusion 
with  the  French  jone. 

{b)  French  Vowel  Spellings, 

I.  on,  or  ow,  was  the  French  symbol,  as  at 
present,  for  the  ?7-sound,  the  sound  which  we 
generally  express  by  00  in  Mod.  Eng.  This  old  vowel, 
as  we  have  seen  (see  p.  137  (5)  above),  was  diphthong- 
ized in  the  sixteenth  century  to  something  like  its 
present  sound.     This  fact  accounts  for  the  apparent 


FRENCH  VOWEL  SYMBOLS  I43 

attempt   at   phonetic   spelling  of  the  diphthong  in 
house,  mouse,  cow,  etc. 

2.  The  sound  of  Modern  French  u  in  hme  existed  in 
Norman  French,  and  also  in  O.K.  It  was  written  u 
by  French  scribes,  when  short,  in  both  French  and 
English  words  where  it  existed.  Since  it  only  sur- 
vived (in  English  words)  in  M.E.  in  the  Southern  or 
Saxon  dialect,  we  have  few,  if  any,  words  of  English 
origin  which  contain  the  representative  of  this  sound  at 
the  present  day.  It  survives,  however,  in  the  spelling 
of  the  verb  bury,  although  the  Standard  pronuncia- 
tion here  is  that  of  the  old  Kentish  dialect.  In 
French  words,  however,  the  sound  was  very  common, 
and  was  nearly  always  written  u  in  M.E.  The 
spelling  survives  in  such  words  as  lute,  nature,  brute, 
etc.  When  long,  this  sound  was  often  written  ui. 
This  spelling  survives  in  the  French  words  fruit, 
bruit,  suit,  etc.,  and  in  the  English  bruise.  The 
latter  is  the  only  case  in  Standard  English  where 
the  old  Southern  sound  is  represented,  and  therefore 
the  only  one  where  the  spelling  survives  in  a  Native 
English  word. 

Other  Survivals  of  M.E.  Spellings. 

{a)  Consonants, 

I.  The  symbol  gh.  We  may  distinguish  four 
cases  of  what  we  may  call  an  improper  use  of  gh 
in  Mod.  Eng. :  (i)  bright,  sigh  ;  (2)  sought,  daughter  ; 
(3)  ploiigh,  bough  (in  neither  of  these  cases  does  the 
symbol  express  any  sound  in  our  present  pronun- 
ciation) ;  (4)  rough,  laugh,  etc.,  where  it  expresses  the 
sound  of/. 


144  ENGLISH  SPELLING 

In  (i)  gh  or  h  in  M.E.  expressed  the  sound  now 
heard  in  German  '  ich,''  '  /,'  etc.  This  sound  was 
gradually  weakened,  until  it  was  assimilated  to  the 
short  z-sound,  which  it  lengthened,  and  then  it 
disappeared  from  speech.  In  (2)  gh  expressed  the 
sound  of  ch  in  Scotch  loch.  This  sound  seems  to 
have  been  the  cause  of  the  development  of  a  diph- 
thong with  the  preceding  vowel,  out  of  which  sound 
the  Mod.  Eng.  'aw  '-sound  has  developed  (see  p.  138). 
In  (4)  the  sound  of  Scotch  ch  in  loch  became,  by  a 
common  M.E.  change,  the  /-sound.  In  all  these 
cases  there  was  once  a  good  reason  for  writing  gh ; 
there  is  none  now,  except  custom.  The  words  in  (4) 
are  very  curious,  for  the  spellings  show  that  they 
represent  the  type  which  developed  /  in  M.E.,  and 
yet  the  pronunciation  is  quite  different.  The  fact  is 
that  there  were  in  early  M.E.  two  types  of  the  word 
plough,  etc.,  one  derived  from  the  Nominative,  in 
which  gh  was  final  and  voiceless,  and  ultimately 
became  /  in  pronunciation,  as  in  rough,  enough,  and 
as  in  the  provincial  Mod.  Eng.  ' pleuf,'  '  plough ' ;  the 
other  derived  from  the  oblique  cases  {ploghes,  etc.), 
where  gh  was  voiced  and  normally  developed  into  a 
T(y-sound,  or  assimilated  with  the  preceding  vowel 
to  form  a  diphthong.  This  type  is  represented  in 
our  present  pronunciation  of  plough  and  bough, 
and  in  the  old  form  enow  (compared  with  enough). 
The  old  spelling  plow  accurately  expresses  this 
M.E.  type. 

Therefore,  in  plough  and  botigh  we  write  one  histori- 
cal form  and  pronounce  another. 

2.  The  use  of  c  and  k  for  the  same  sound.  If 
we  examine  the  words  which  contain  the  ^-sound 


GRAPHIC  DEVICES  145 

initially  in  Mod.  Eng.,  we  shall  find  that  as  a  general 
rule  there  is  a  certain  method  in  the  employment  of 
the  two  symbols  to  express  it.  We  shall  find  that  k 
is  generally  used  in  such  words  as  kith,  kin,  kind, 
keen,  ken,  kiss,  king,  etc. ;  that  is,  in  words  where  the 
vowel  still  is,  or  was  in  early  M.E.,  a  front  vowel. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  have  c  in  cot,  cut,  comb,  cool, 
came,  etc. ;  that  is,  in  words  in  which  the  following 
vowel  is,  or  was  in  early  M.E.,  a  back  vowel.  The 
reason  of  this  distinction  is  plain.  The  letter  c  in 
O.E.  represented  two  sounds,  a  back,  or  ^-sound, 
and  a  front,  or  very  nearly  a  '  ch  '-sound.  Now,  the 
symbol  k  first  came  into  general  use  in  early  M.E., 
and  its  use  was  perfectly  regular  and  uniform  ;  it 
stood  only  for  one  sound — that  which  we  still 
associate  with  it.  Before  back  vowels  there  could 
be  no  doubt  that  c  always  represented  a  ^-sound  in 
English  words,  and  it  was  therefore  retained  in  the 
spelling  before  these.  On  the  other  hand,  c  before 
front  vowels  was  ambiguous  ;  it  represented  the 
•^-sound  in  some  words,  but  the  c/j-sound  in  others. 
Again,  in  words  of  French  origin  it  also  stood  for 
the  sound  of  s,  as  we  have  seen.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances, it  was  very  convenient  to  use  the  S3'mbol 
k  in  words  like  kin,  etc.,  where  the  spelling  cin 
might  stand  either  for  '  chin  '  (if  an  English  word), 
or  for  '  sin  '  (if  a  French  word). 

3.  Final  -e  as  a  sign  of  length.  In  M.E.,  as  we 
have  seen  (pp.  133,  134),  in  words  like  hope,  the  vowel 
of  the  first  syllable  was  always  long.  Then  the  e  dis- 
appeared in  pronunciation,  but  was  still  often  written, 
after  the  word  was  pronounced  merely  hop.  The 
*  silent '  e  thus  was  looked  upon  as  an  indication  that 

10 


146  ENGLISH  SPELLING 

the  preceding  vowel  was  long,  and  was  found  to  be  a 
useful  device  to  express  this  fact. 

(b)  Vowel  Spellings. 

1.  Mod.  Eng.  00,  which  now  in  most  cases  expresses 
the  sound  of  u  (French  sou,  German  blume,  English 
bloom),  is  originally  a  doubling  of  the  symbol  to 
express  a  long  vowel.  In  Early  M.E.  this  was 
simply  a  long  o-sound  {cf.  p.  136  (4)  above).  This 
00,  originally  the  sign  of  the  long  close  6,  has  been 
retained,  in  spite  of  the  complete  change  of  sound. 
Hence  English  people  have  come  to  regard  this  as  the 
natural  means  of  expressing  the  i/-sound.  A  reference 
to  pp.  136  (4)  and  137  (6)  will  explain  why  we  also  write 
00  in  blood  and  in  good.  The  old  *  close  '  0,  whether  in 
words  of  English  or  French  origin,  was,  and  still  is, 
written  in  this  way.  For  English  words,  see  above, 
loc.  cit.  Fool  is  an  example  of  a  French  word  with 
this  spelling. 

2.  ee  or  ie,  and  ea  were  used  to  distinguish  respec- 
tively the  sound  of  close  e  (French  e),  and  of  open  e 
(French  c).  These  sounds  have  now  been  levelled 
under  a  single  sound,  as  in  believe,  seed,  and  head 
respectively,  but  the  difference  in  the  spelling  is  still 
kept  [cf.  p.  136  (2)  above),  ie  is  used  only  for  the 
close  e  in  M.E.,  and  many  words  were  spelt  thus, 
especially  by  some  writers  of  the  fourteenth  century, 
which  are  now  written  with  ee. 

3.  0  was  written  in  words  like  some,  son,  Mon- 
mouth, come,  etc.,  instead  of  it  in  M.E.  This  was 
simply  a  graphic  device,  and  implied  no  change  of 
sound.     Its  purpose  was  distinctness,  for  stmt,  cume 


SPELLING  AND  ETYMOLOGY  147 

etc.,  in  M.E.  writing  looked  very  like  a  confusion  ot 

strokes,  u,  Uy  and  m  being  very  much  alike. 

The  history  of  M.E.  n  has  been  discussed  (p.  137  (6) 
above),  and  of  course  the  development  of  the  sound 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  graphic  expression  of  it. 
This  habit  of  writing  0  instead  of  ii  explains  the 
occurrence  of  the  former  letter  to-day  in  several 
words  which  have  the  vowel  sound  of  but.  In  M.E. 
the  spelling  was  far  commoner  than  now,  for  the  u 
has  been  restored  in  a  large  number  of  words. 

Attempts  at  Etymological  Spelling. 

In  Norman  French  the  words  debt  and  doubt  were 
spelt  dette,  doute,  respectively,  and  they  retained  this 
spelling  in  English.  At  a  later  date  a  b  was  intro- 
duced into  each,  as  if  to  show  that  they  were  derived 
from  Latin  debitum,  dubittnn.  This  belief  is  true  to 
some  extent,  but  the  Z?-sound  had  been  lost  long 
before  they  were  introduced  from  French  into 
English.  Faidt  and  false  were  spelt  faut  and  fause 
in  M.E. ;  the  /  of  popular  Latin  fallitum,  falsuni, 
had  disappeared  already  in  Norman  French  before 
the  words  passed  into  our  language.  Indeed,  Pope 
still  rhymes  fmdt — thought,  and  no  /  is  heard  in 
Scotch  pronunciation  at  the  present  day. 

Island  has  a  curious  history  as  regards  its  spelling. 
It  stands  for  O.E.  Igland,  M.E.  lland,  a  compound, 
of  which  the  first  element  Ig,  i,  itself  means  *  island.' 
But  the  word  was  very  early  connected  with  French 
lie,  from  Lat.  instda.  Now,  the  s  was  restored  to 
the  form  isle  in  Continental  French,  from  the  same 
tendency  to  etymologize  which  led  our  forefathers  to 

10 — 2 


148  ENGLISH  SPELLING 

write  debt,  etc.  This  spelling  Isle  then  found  its  way 
into  England,  and  the  word  Tland,  being  regarded  as 
really  U-land,  was  also  endowed  with  an  s. 

Couldy  from  M.E.  coude,  has  absolutely  no  right  to 
/  in  the  middle  from  any  point  of  view,  since  no 
such  sound  ever  existed  in  this  word.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  the  spelling  is  due  to  the  pattern  of  should 
and  would,  where  /  was  once  pronounced — M.E, 
sJiolde,  wdlde. 

gh  in  ghost,  ghastly,  is  apparently  the  result  of 
Italian  literary  influence  in  the  Early  Modern 
period. 

Influence  of  Spelling  on  Pronunciation. 

That  the  mode  of  writing  a  word,  which  is  in 
English  purely  a  survival  of  a  bygone  age,  and  often, 
as  we  have  seen,  not  even  a  genuine  record  of  an 
earHer  pronunciation,  should  have  any  effect  at  all 
upon  living,  traditional  utterance  is  remarkable,  and 
a  process  which  could  only  come  about  in  an  age 
when  men  cherished  the  written  symbol  with  a  kind 
of  superstition,  as  enshrining  some  essential  truth 
which  should  hold  good  for  all  time.  The  very  worst 
way,  as  a  rule,  to  form  any  idea  of  the  pronunciation 
of  an  English  word  at  the  present  time  is  to  consider 
its  speUing.  Yet,  strange  to  say,  there  are  a  few 
cases  in  which  the  natural  course  of  development 
has  been  interrupted,  as  regards  common  usage,  and 
a  deliberate  return  has  been  made  to  a  pronunciation 
suggested  by  the  spelling.  Fault  and  false  are  cases 
in  point,  and  here,  curiously  enough,  an  altogether 
new  sound,  so  far  as   these  words  in    English    are 


SPELLING  INFLUENCES  PRONUNCIATION    149 

concerned,  is  introduced.  There  is  a  considerable 
tendency  among  some  classes  at  the  present  time  to 
consider  ordinary  colloquial  pronunciation  as  some- 
thing '  corrupt '  and  '  vulgar,'  something  which  needs 
correction.  For  instance,  an  initial  h  has  been  intro- 
duced into  the  pronunciation  of  humble,  herb,  hospital, 
words  of  Norman-French  origin,  where,  as  it  seems 
likely,  no  aspirate  has  been  pronounced  for  hundreds 
of  years,  although  we  have  continued  to  write  h. 
How  long  will  it  be  before  h  is  pronounced  in  hotir, 
honour,  honest,  on  the  same  principle  ?  Again,  h  has 
been  restored  for  more  than  a  generation  in  *  neigh- 
bour/^ood,'  although  h  in  such  a  position  has  normally 
long  disappeared  from  pronunciation,  h  is  now  being 
restored  by  many  of  the  rising  generation  in  forehead, 
and  a  pronunciation  '  faw  /zead '  is  now  common. 
When  the  present  writer  was  a  boy  this  pronuncia- 
tion was  an  unpardonable  vulgarism,  only  heard  from 
semi-educated  persons  who  were  trying  to  '  speak 
fine.' 

But  the  class  of  words  most  affected  by  '  spelling- 
pronunciation  '  are  Place  and  Personal  Names. 
Here  the  traditional  pronunciation  often  cannot  be 
guessed  by  those  who  know  neither  the  people  nor 
the  places.  The  increase  of  railways  opens  up  and 
connects  all  parts  of  the  country,  and  names  like 
Uttoxeter,  Cirencester,  the  spelling  of  which  is  very 
old,  seen  in  print  for  the  first  time  by  people  who 
have  never  heard  the  names  from  natives,  are  certain 
to  mislead.  It  constantly  happens  in  such  cases 
that  the  sham  spelling-pronunciations  given  by 
porters  and  tourists  gain  ground  in  the  neighbour- 
hood itself.     This  is  the  case  of  Cirencester,  many 


ISO  ENGLISH  SPELLING 

of  whose  inhabitants,  instead  of  '  sissiter  '  or  '  sis- 
sister,'  pronounce  '  syrensester,'  or  even,  for  short, 
'syren.'  It  is  notorious  that  Oxford  tradesmen 
always  correct  one's  pronunciation  of  '  mawdlen  '  to 
*  magdalen '  College. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  ENGLISH 
VOCABULARY— LOAN-WORDS 

When  we  speak  of  the  development  of  the  vocabulary 
of  a  language,  we  have  to  consider  not  only  the  new 
words  which  pass  into  it  from  age  to  age,  but  also  of 
the  new  significance  which  many  old  words  acquire. 
But  the  history  of  the  vocabulary  of  English,  or 
indeed  of  any  other  language,  is  not  a  chronicle  of 
pure  gain.  Words  often  fall  out  of  common  use ; 
they  may  pass  out  of  everyday  speech  into  that  of 
the  higher  forms  of  oratory ;  then  tHey  may  linger 
on  in  occasional  literary  use,  and  finally  disappear 
altogether.  The  place  of  these  losses  often  has  to  be 
filled,  and  they  may  be  replaced  either  by  words 
which  existed  of  old  in  the  language,  side  by  side 
with  those  which  have  vanished,  or  by  entirely  new 
words  which  come  into  the  language  from  outside — 
that  is,  from  some  other  language. 

The  best  way  to  get  a  sound  and  clear  idea  of  the 
nature  of  the  English  vocabulary  is  to  take  a  piece 
of  Old  English  of  moderate  length,  say  the  New 
Testament,  or  of  Middle  English,  say  of  Chaucer's 
Canterbury  Tales,  The  Prologue,  or  The  Knightes  Tale, 
and  carefully  compare  the  vocabulary  of  these 
selections  with  that  of  the  present  day.     The  words 

151 


152  THE  ENGLISH  VOCABULARY 

may  be  grouped  into  the  following  classes  :  (i)  Words 
which  survive  with  the  same  meaning  ;  (2)  words 
which  survive  in  form,  but  which  have  acquired  so 
different  a  meaning  that  the  modern  forms  could  not 
be  used  in  the  particular  context ;  (3)  words  which 
have  been  lost  altogether.  In  this  case  it  should  be 
noticed  what  kind  of  words  have  replaced  them, 
whether  native  English  or  words  of  foreign  origin. 

Again,  the  student  may  start  from  Modern  English, 
and  analyse  the  vocabulary  of  a  simple  piece  of 
prose  or  verse  into  groups  of  words  of  various  origin 
— native  English,  Norse,  Norman  French,  Later 
French,  Latin,  and  so  on.  In  both  of  these  opera- 
tions the  aid  of  a  reliable  Etymological  dictionary  of 
moderate  size,  such  as  Mr.  Skeat's  Concise  Dictionary ^ 
is  indispensable,  and  in  case  the  student  starts  from 
Old  or  Middle  English,  a  good  Old  or  Middle  English 
dictionary  is  necessary. 

Most  people  of  some  education  will  recognize  a 
word  as  English,  French,  or  Latin,  in  the  majority  of 
cases,  and  these  are  the  m.ost  important  foreign 
elements  in  English.  The  next  important  element 
is  Old  Norse,  which  is  not  so  readily  distinguished  by 
the  ordinary  student  from  native  English.  The 
most  vital  point  for  the  young  student  is  to  know  at 
least  which  of  the  words  which  he  uses  are  really 
English,  in  the  sense  of  being  survivals  of  the  original 
vocabulary  of  our  race,  which  it  had  in  common  with 
the  other  closely  related  tongues  of  the  Germanic 
family.  If,  in  addition  to  this,  he  also  knows  which 
the  most  familiar  words  now  in  use  are  of  Norse 
origin,  and  can  recognize  as  such  the  Norman-French 
words  and  the  Latin,  so  much  the  better.     But  this 


MODES  OF  LINGUISTIC  CONTACT  153 

knowledge  must  be  obtained  by  the  student  for  him- 
self by  the  means  suggested  above.  It  is  of  no 
educational  value  whatever  to  bloat  out  the  pages  of 
a  small  book  on  the  History  of  English  with  long 
lists  of  words,  which  exist  in  English  perhaps,  but 
which  are  derived  from  languages  with  which  the 
student  has  no  first-hand  acquaintance. 

We  shall  now  endeavour  to  make  clear,  in  as  brief 
a  space  as  possible,  first  how  the  vocabulary  of  one 
language  is  influenced  by  that  of  another ;  secondly, 
the  principal  tests  which  determine  the  origin  of  a 
foreign  v/ord,  and  the  approximate  date  at  which  it 
was  borrowed ;  and,  thirdly,  what  is  the  subsequent 
fate  of  words  which  are  borrowed  from  one  language 
into  another.  We  shall  then  be  in  a  position  to 
discuss  the  principal  sources  of  the  words  from 
foreign  languages  borrowed  by  English  at  an  early 
period,  and  to  give  a  few  typical  examples  of  such  as 
survive  in  famihar  Modern  English  speech. 

How  One  Language  influences  the  Vocabulary 
of  Another. 

This  influence  may  be  exerted  either  directly^  by 
the  actual  personal  association  of  the  speakers  of  the 
two  languages,  or  indirectly,  through  books  written  in 
a  foreign  tongue. 

The  former  of  these  modes  is  obviously  the  more 
potent  and  thorough  in  its  effects.  Supposing  that 
two  races,  speaking  different  languages,  live  side  by 
side,  associate  intimately  with  each  other,  intermarry, 
and  finally  merge  into  one  people.  What  happens 
in  such  a  case  is  that  gradually  a  large  number  of 


154  THE  ENGLISH  VOCABULARY 

speakers  of  both  races  know  and  speak  both 
languages  equally  well  and  equally  frequently.  For 
several  generations,  probably,  the  two  races  which  are 
in  process  of  fusion  are  bilingual — that  is,  they  can 
speak  two  languages.  Gradually  one  language  is 
spoken  less  and  less,  and  finally  gives  way  entirely 
before  the  other.  This  is  what  happened  in  Eng- 
land when  Englishmen  and  Danes  lived  alongside 
of  each  other,  and  again  later  on,  after  the  Norman 
settlement. 

Now,  the  bilingual  period  is  the  time  when  the 
two  languages  influence  each  other.  A  Dane  who 
knew  English  as  well  as  his  own  language,  would 
often  mingle — perhaps  without  realizing  it — English 
words  with  his  own  language,  and  these  would  be 
perfectly  well  understood  by  his  hearers,  both 
English  and  Danish,  since  they  all  spoke  both 
tongues.  Similarly,  an  Englishman  living  in  a 
district  settled  by  Danes,  and  who  very  likely  was 
half  a  Dane  in  blood,  introduced  Danish  words 
when  speaking  English  ;  he  spoke,  in  fact,  a  mixture 
of  both  languages,  so  far  as  the  words  used  were 
concerned.  Thus,  Danish  words  came  to  be  used 
instead  of,  or  as  well  as,  English  words  of  the  same 
meaning.  The  result  of  such  habits,  when  Danish 
had  died  out  as  an  independent  language,  was  that 
hundreds  of  Danish  words  remained  in  common 
use,  and  these  sometimes  ousted  the  native  English 
words.  This  is  the  most  complete  form  of  influence 
exerted  by  one  language  upon  another. 

Less  powerful  than  this,  but  still  not  without 
effect,  is  the  case  where  a  number  of  inhabitants  of  a 
country  visit  another  land,  either  to  fight,  govern,  or 


INDIRECT  INFLUENCE  155 

trade  with  the  natives.  They  learn  something,  at 
least,  of  the  foreign  language — the  names  of  foods, 
weapons,  or  words  to  express  native  customs  which 
have  no  counterpart  in  their  own  country.  When 
they  return  home,  these  new  words  become  current 
among  their  immediate  circle,  and  some  of  them 
spread  to  wider  spheres. 

Indirect  influence  upon  vocabulary  is  often  exerted 
through  a  language  whose  literature  is  much  studied, 
and  whose  Art,  Philosophy,  and  Culture  are  highly 
prized  and  widely  known  by  foreign  races.  Latin 
had  in  this  way  a  profound  influence  upon  all  the 
civilized  languages  of  Europe  in  the  Middle  Ages, 
because  the  old  literature  of  Rome  was  universally 
read,  and  also  because  the  Roman  form  of  Christianity 
had  a  wide  acceptance,  and  the  official  language 
of  this  Roman  Christianity  was  Latin.  With  the 
revival  of  learning,  Greek  became  a  common  means 
for  the  precise  expression  of  the  technical  ideas  of 
Art,  Science,  and  Philosophy,  while  French  has  been, 
of  all  the  Modern  languages,  the  chief  vehicle  of 
culture  from  the  Middle  Ages  down  to  the  present 
time.  Hence  all  European  languages  have  felt  more 
or  less  deeply  these  influences — indirect  for  the  most 
part  in  the  case  of  Latin  and  Greek,  but  in  that  of 
French,  directly,  as  well. 

Tests  of  Origin  of  Foreign  Words,  and  of  the 
Time  of  their  Adoption. 

When  during  the  late  war  in  South  Africa  the 
style  of  newspaper  correspondents  bristled  with  such 
words   as  '  kop,'   *  kopje,'  *  spruit,'  and   the   rest,  or 


156  THE  ENGLISH  VOCABULARY 

when  our  friends  returned  from  the  war  and  used 
these  words  in  their  conversation  (they  pronounced 
them,  for  the  most  part,  hke  '  copy '  and  *  sproot '), 
there  was  httle  doubt  in  anyone's  mind  that  these 
strange  words  had  been  learnt  during  the  last  year 
or  two  from  Dutch  speakers  in  South  Africa.  But 
in  the  case  of  words  borrowed  hundred  of  years  ago, 
perhaps,  it  is  not  always  so  easy  to  settle  the 
language  from  which  they  came,  or  the  period  at 
which  they  were  acquired.  The  first  point  is  that 
the  form  of  the  words  must  be  such  that  we  can 
recognize  them  as  belonging  to  a  particular  language, 
and  the  next  that  we  should  be  able  to  establish  the 
possibility  of  the  contact,  direct  or  indirect,  between 
the  speakers  of  the  language  whence  the  words  come, 
and  those  of  the  language  which  has,  as  we  assume, 
adopted  them.  Therefore,  if  we  assume  a  certain 
foreign  word  in  Old  English  to  be  of  Latin  origin, 
the  first  question  is.  Could  Old  English  speakers  and 
writers  at  any  period  have  come  into  contact  with 
Latin  in  any  shape  or  form  ?  Supposing  this  point 
to  be  satisfactorily — that  is,  affirmatively — settled, 
the  next  is.  When  did  the  borrowing  take  place  ? 
Now,  Latin,  while  it  was  a  living  language,  underwent 
changes  of  pronunciation  like  other  languages,  and 
varied  considerably,  in  its  spoken  form,  from  the 
stereotyped  and  fixed  form  of  the  Classical  writers. 
Therefore,  we  have  to  inquire.  At  what  period  was 
this  particular  word  pronounced  in  spoken  Latin 
in  a  way  approximating  to  the  form  which  it  bears 
in  Old  English  ?  If  we  can  settle  this,  then  we 
shall  be  pretty  near  being  able  to  fix  more  or  less 
exactly  the  date  of  the  loan,  since  the  Latin  word 


.DATE  OF  BORROWING  157 

was  differently  pronounced  at  different  times,  and 
among  different  races.  All  the  good  little  books  on 
English  tell  us  that  the  same  foreign  word  may  be 
borrowed  several  times  over  into  English,  at  different 
periods,  and  each  time  with  a  new  pronunciation. 
A  stock  example  of  this  is  the  Low  Latin  word 
hospitalia,  which  we  have  in  the  forms  hostel,  from  an 
early  form  of  French  which  had  changed  it  consider- 
ably;  hotel,  from  Modern  French  hotel,  which  has 
changed  it  still  more,  having  lost  the  s ;  and  hospital, 
which  is  the  Latin  word  practically  unchanged,  and 
which  the  English  may  have  borrowed  any  time 
direct  from  the  language  of  Latin  books. 

Therefore,  if  we  wish  to  have  an  intelligent  know- 
ledge of  the  origin  of  such  loan-words  as  are  of  any 
antiquity,  it  is  of  the  highest  importance  to  pay 
attention  to  their  form  or  pronunciation  at  different 
periods,  both  in  the  language  from  which  and  into 
which  they  are  borrowed.  It  is  further  necessary 
to  possess  sufficient  historical  knowledge  to  show 
how  and  when  the  two  peoples  came  into  contact, 
direct  or  literary. 

The  Fate  of  Foreign  Words  in  a  Language. 

When  a  foreign  word  passes  into  common  use  in  a 
language,  by  one  of  the  processes  described  above, 
it  has  at  first,  a  form  as  near  as  possible  to  that 
which  it  bore  in  the  language  from  which  it  was 
taken.  It  is  necessary,  for  clearness,  to  distinguish 
between  words  derived  direct  from  hving  speech  and 
those  derived  through  the  written  language. 

We  will  consider  first  the  fate  of  words  taken  from 


OF   THE  '^ 

WNlVERSfT 


158  THE  ENGLISH  VOCABULARY 

a  living  spoken  language.  When  a  speaker  acquires 
a  foreign  word,  and,  for  some  reason  or  other,  uses 
it  when  speaking  his  own  tongue,  the  pronunciation 
which  he  gives  the  word  will  be  as  near  as  he  can 
make  it  to  that  current  at  the  time  among  those 
from  whom  he  has  learnt  the  word — that  is,  the 
native  speakers  of  the  foreign  language.  The  degree 
of  fidelity  to  the  original  native  pronunciation  which 
the  word  retains  in  the  language  into  which  it  is 
introduced  will  depend  upon  the  familiarity  which 
speakers  of  the  latter  possess  with  the  language 
from  which  they  borrow,  and  also  upon  how  far  the 
sounds  of  the  two  languages  differ  or  agree.  In  the 
case  which  we  discussed  above,  of  Danish  words 
passing  into  English,  we  m.ust  remember,  first,  that 
the  Englishmen  who  adopted  Danish  words  probably 
knew  this  language  very  well,  and,  secondly,  that  the 
sounds  of  English  and  Danish  were  probably  very 
much  alike.  In  fact,  Danish  may  well  have  been 
spoken  by  the  Danes  themselves  with  an  *  English 
accent.'  Therefore,  the  Danish  words  might  retain 
in  English  a  pronunciation  almost  identical  with 
the  Danish  pronunciation  then  in  vogue,  and  yet 
not  sound  strange  to  English  ears  when  used  in  an 
English  sentence.  As  a  general  rule,  we  may  say 
that  a  foreign  word  does  not  retain,  in  wide  and 
common  usage,  among  speakers  of  a  different 
language,  a  pronunciation  which  is  quite  strange  to 
that  language.  Speakers  give  to  foreign  words  the 
nearest  corresponding  sound  of  their  own  language 
to  that  of  the  word  in  its  native  dialect.  The  dif- 
ferences, if  any,  between  the  two  are  often  so  slight 
that  they  cannot  be  expressed  by  ordinary  spelling. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  BORROWED  WORDS      159 

By  examining  a  certain  number  of  borrowed  words 
in  any  language,  we  are  enabled  to  say  how  any 
particular  sound  is  treated  by  the  borrowers.  We 
can  say  such  and  such  a  sound  in  this  or  that 
language  appears  as  such  and  such  a  sound  in  this 
or  that  other  language,  in  words  borrowed  by  the 
latter  from  the  former. 

But  if  the  sounds  of  a  language  change,  words 
borrowed  after  the  changes  will  naturally  show  the 
results  of  these  changes.  Now,  the  word  for  'rope' 
in  Welsh  is  rhajf,  which  we  believe  to  be  a  loan-w^ord 
from  English.  But  it  cannot  have  been  borrowed 
from  Mod.  Eng.,  on  account  of  the  difference  of  vowel. 
W^e  know,  however,  that  in  O.E.  the  pronunciation 
was  rap,  and  we  therefore  conclude  that  this  word 
was  borrowed  by  the  Welsh  before  the  sound  a  had 
become  6 — that  is,  in  the  Old  English  period.  In 
Welsh  a  has  undergone  no  change.  Again,  the 
words  'street'  and  ''strath'  are  both  ultimately 
derived  from  the  Latin  strata  via,  '  a  paved  way.' 
In  one  case  the  Latin  t  has  been  preserved  to  the 
present  day  in  English,  in  the  other  it  has  become  th. 
Clearly  these  two  forms  of  the  same  Latin  word 
could  not  have  come  into  English  at  the  same 
period,  and  through  the  same  linguistic  medium,  for 
if  the  English  were  able  to  reproduce  the  Latin 
^sound,  they  would  not  at  the  same  time,  and  in  the 
same  word,  have  been  obliged  to  substitute  another 
sound  for  it,  as  in  strath.  Therefore,  the  latter  word 
must  have  been  borrowed  from  speakers  who  at  the 
time  of  the  borrowing  had  changed  the  pronuncia- 
tion of  Latin  t  to  th. 

Loan-words,  then,  appear  in  a  language  with   a 


i6o  THE  ENGLISH  VOCABULARY 

pronunciation  which,  while  it  does  not  in  itself 
proclaim  them  to  be  foreigners,  at  the  same  time 
reproduces  approximately  the  native  sounds. 

The  next  point  is  that  when  once  words  have  got 
a  footing  in  a  language  their  subsequent  develop- 
ment is  identical  with  that  of  the  native  words  of 
the  language.  Their  sounds  are  those  of  the 
language  which  has  adopted  them,  and  any  changes 
which  these  sounds  undergo  extend  naturally  to  the 
borrowed  and  native  words  alike.  For  example,  we 
have  seen  (p.  135  (i)  ante)  that  M.E.  a  became  e  (Hke 
French  e)  in  Early  Modern  English.  The  words 
which  had  a  in  M.E.  were  not  only  native  English 
words  like  ndnu,  but  also  Norman- French  words 
like  blame;  but  both  classes  of  words  have  developed 
alike,  and  in  Present-day  English  name  and  blame 
have  the  same  sound.  When  once  established  in 
English  usage,  foreign  words  become,  to  all  intents 
and  purposes,  English  words. 

Although  it  is  not  usual  for  foreign  words  to 
preserve,  when  borrowed,  a  sound  which  is  altogether 
alien  and  unknown  in  the  language  into  which  they 
have  passed,  this  sometimes  occurs  in  the  case  of 
words  taken  from  a  language  which  is  commonly 
studied  by  educated  persons.  In  this  case  the 
knowledge  of  the  spoken  form  of  the  foreign  language 
sometimes  influences  the  pronunciation  of  words 
among  the  educated  classes.  Thus,  the  word  envelope, 
which  is  Modern  French,  although  thoroughly 
naturalized  in  English  speech  among  all  classes, 
has  three  pronunciations  in  this  country — (i)  That 
which  gives  the  French  sound  of  a  nasal  vowel  to 
the  first  syllable  ;  (2)  *  envelope,'  which  is  the  English 


SPELLING  AND  SOUND  IN  FOREIGN  WORDS     i6t 

imitation  of  the  French  sound ;  (3)  '  envelope,'  which 
is  what  is  called  a  '  spelling-pronunciation,'  and 
originated  among  people  who  did  not  hear  the  word, 
but  made  their  first  acquaintance  with  it  in  its 
written  form.  This  last  is  probably  the  commonest 
at  the  present  time  among  all  classes,  '  o;^velope  '  being 
old-fashioned,  and  the  pure  French  pronunciation, 
as  is  natural,  being  given  up  in  the  case  of  a  word 
which  is  felt  by  the  community  at  large  to  be 
thoroughly  English.  In  any  case,  the  foreign  sound 
could  never  occur  except  among  those  who  had 
studied  French  pronunciation.  It  will  be  readily 
understood  that  the  only  kind  of  pronunciation 
which  is  possible  for  words  which  we  have  never 
heard  pronounced,  and  know  only  from  books,  is 
one  in  which  the  most  usual  English  value  is  given 
to  the  letters.  This  kind  of  pronunciation  may 
become  fixed  and  traditional  as  the  words  in 
question  become  popular.  An  example  of  this  is 
the  French  word  rotUe,  often  pronounced  to  rhyme 
with  out,  although  the  French  pronunciation  (like 
'  root ')  is  still  the  most  usual  among  the  educated. 
In  this  case  there  is  no  reason  why  the  native  sound 
of  the  word  should  not  be  retained,  as  it  is  a  common 
sound  in  English,  but  those  unacquainted  with 
French  who  saw  the  word  for  the  first  time  in  a 
book  could  not  know  that  ou  is  pronounced  like 
English  *  00.'  Such  a  word  as  machine,  on  the  other 
hand,  which  everybody  is  bound  to  know,  long 
before  they  learn  to  read,  retains  the  French  pro- 
nunciation of  ch  and  i,  in  spite  of  the  spelling. 


II 


i62  THE  ENGLISH  VOCABULARY 

Words  from  Purely  Literary  Sources. 

The  principle  which  determines  the  form  of  this  very 
large  class  of  words  is  that  which  we  have  just  noted 
in  the  pronunciations  route,  ^;/velope.  While  some 
words  are  living  forms  for  one  class,  but  merely  book 
forms  for  another,  words  which  are  taken  from  the 
literature  of  languages  no  longer  spoken  must,  of 
necessity,  be,  in  origin,  book  forms  for  all.  Words 
taken  from  Latin  and  Greek  direct  are  simply 
Englished  by  giving  the  ordinary  sounds  which  are 
associated  at  the  time  of  borrowing  with  the  letters 
in  the  word.  In  a  large  number  of  cases  we  have  in 
English  words  of  Latin  origin  which  have  come  in 
through  Norman  or  Continental  French,  and  which 
before  they  passed  into  English  had  undergone  the 
normal  sound  changes  in  popular  speech,  and  also 
the  same  word,  taken,  at  a  different  time,  direct  from 
literary  Latin,  and  preserving  sounds  vv^hich  had  been 
lost  long  before  in  the  spoken  language.  Caitif, 
captive,  both  =  Latin  captivus  ;  chief,  Norman-French 
chef,  from  a  popular  Latin  capo,  from  Latin  caput, 
compared  with  capH-ol,  etc. ;  henison  and  benediction, 
from  Latin  benedictionem,  are  among  the  stock 
examples  of  this. 

The  Sources  of  Foreign  Loan-Words  in  Old 
English. 

I.  Celtic. —  The  influence  of  this  family  of  lan- 
guages has  not  profoundly  affected  English  or  any 
other  Germanic  language.  It  is,  however,  one  of  the 
earliest  foreign  influences  that  can  be  traced  in  our 


EARLY  INFLUENCE  OF  LATIN  163 

language,  and  was  first  exerted  before  our  forefathers 
left  the  Continent.  A  word  from  Continental  Celtic 
which  is  found  in  O-E.  and  its  cognates  in  the  other 
Germanic  languages  is  Hce,  '  kingdom,'  '  rule.'  This 
word  survives  in  the  present  day  only  in  the  com- 
pound bishop-nc. 

2.  Latin.  —  There  are  three  distinct  groups  of 
words  from  this  source  found  in  O.E. :  those  bor- 
rowed on  the  Continent  by  the  English,  in  common 
with  other  Germanic  peoples  ;  those  borrowed  from 
Latin-speaking  Britons  in  these  islands ;  those  ac- 
quired at  a  later  period  through  the  direct  influence 
of  Roman  Christianity  after  the  conversion  of  the 
English.  The  loans  of  these  three  periods  are  dis- 
tinguished by  their  form  in  O.E.  Only  words  of 
each  class  which  survive  in  Mod.  Eng.  are  given  in 
the  following  examples. 

{a)  Continental  Latin. — Among  the  principal  tests 
of  this  class  of  loans  are  the  retention  in  O.E.  of 
Latin  p,  t,  c  (  =  k)  between  vowels,  and  the  presence 
of  the  word  in  other  Germanic  languages  in  such  a 
form  as  to  imply  that  it  was  acquired  before  the 
languages  separated,  and  then  underwent  the  char- 
acteristic sound  changes  of  each  language.  These 
tests  are  fulfilled  by  the  following  words  :  O.E.  n^p, 
from  Lat.  ndpus  {cf.  Scotch  neap  and  Eng.  tuv-nipf 
in  which  last  the  vowel  of  the  word  has  been 
shortened  in  the  unstressed  syllable  of  a  compound)  ; 
O.E.  inynet,  'coin,'  from  Lat.  moneta,  Eng.  mint; 
O.E./Zc-beam,  'fig,'  'La.t.  fwns.  This  word  has  been 
lost,  our  fig,  as  its  final  g  shows,  having  come  to  us 
through  Norman  French. 

Latin  strata-wio.  survives  in  O.E.  street,  Mod.  Eng. 

12 — 2 


i64  THE  ENGLISH  VOCABULARY 

street ;  O.E.  dyse,  cese,  from  Lat.  cclseum,  has  become 
Mod.  Eng.  cheese.  Kitchen,  O.E.  cycene,  Lat.  coquina, 
is  probably  a  Continental  survival. 

(6)  Latin  Words  acquired  in  Britain. — It  has  been 
maintained  with  great  probability  that  the  educated 
upper  classes  among  the  British  of  the  towns  in 
these  islands  still  spoke  a  form  of  Latin  at  the  time 
of  the  arrival  (fifth  century)  of  the  English  from  the 
Continent.  In  any  case,  it  is  certain  that  a  large 
number  of  Latin  words  were  in  common  use  among 
them,  and  many  of  these  passed  into  English.  But 
the  Latin  in  use  in  Britain  had  changed  considerably 
in  pronunciation  from  the  older  form  of  it  which  the 
English  had  already  met  in  their  old  homes.  For 
instance,  c  (k)  between  vowels  was  voiced,  as  is  seen 
in  O.E.  ctigelcy  '  cowl,'  from  some  such  form  as  ctigul, 
earlier  Latin  cuculla.  Similarly,  p  had  become  b 
between  vowels,  and  this  sound  had  still  further 
developed  into  a  sound  something  like  v,  though 
written/  in  O.E. — prdfost,  l.Rt  prc^positns,  but  Brito- 
Lat.  pravost.  This  is  Eng.  provost.  Another  very 
common  O.E.  word  which  would  appear  to  have 
been  borrowed  in  this  country  is  ccester,  *  city,'  Brito- 
Lat.  castr,  Lat.  castra.  This  word  survives  in  Chester, 
and  in  other  place-names  such  as  Rochester,  etc.  The 
vowel  change  seen  in  the  O.E.  word  is  of  English 
origin,  and  took  place  in  Enghsh  mouths  after  the 
borrowing. 

(c)  Latin  Words  of  Later  Date  derived  from  the 
Roman  Missionaries. —  Many  of  these  words,  which 
were  very  numerous  in  O.E.,  have  been  lost.  Among 
survivals  of  the  class  are  probably />o/j^,  O.E.  papay 
Lat.  papa ;  martyr. 


THE  BRITONS— THE  DANES  165 

There  are  words  associated  with  the  Christian 
reHgion  which  were  undoubtedly  borrowed  on  the 
Continent  while  the  English  were  still  pagan,  such 
as  devil,  O.E.  deofol,  Lat.  diabolus ;  church,  O.K.  cyrce, 
from  Gk.  KvpcaKa,  '  belonging  to  the  Lord '  ;  bishop, 
O.E.  biscop,  Lat.  episcopus,  from  Gk.  eTrtV/coTro?. 

3.  Celtic  Words  borrowed  in  Britain. — It  is  sur- 
prising how  few  of  these  there  are  in  O.E.  compared 
with  the  number  of  Latin  words  acquired  from  Celtic 
speakers.  We  may  mention  brocc,  '  badger,'  Old 
Irish  brocc;  down  (sub.),  'hill,'  O.E.  dvM,  Irish  dan. 
The  English  word  dune  (sand-dune)  is  also  of  Celtic 
origin,  and  is  the  same  word  as  the  last,  but  has 
reached  us,  as  its  form  shows,  through  French.  The 
same  is  true  of  our  word  druid,  although  in  O.E. 
there  was  a  word  dry,  '  magician,'  which  has  been 
lost,  from  a  form  like  that  of  Old  Irish  drui. 

4.  Scandinavian  Words  acquired  from  the 
Danes. — We  have  already  mentioned  the  historical 
events  which  led  to  the  introduction  of  this  element 
into  our  vocabulary  (pp.  114,  115  ante).  The  number 
of  words  of  Scandinavian  origin  which  appear  in 
writings  of  the  O.E.  period  are  exceedingly  few, 
and  of  these  none  appear  to  have  survived.  They 
are  chiefly  the  names  of  things  typically  Danish — 
the  names  of  ships,  coins,  weapons.  We  may,  how- 
ever, mention  take,  husband  (in  the  sense  of  house- 
holder), and  husting,  which  are  found  in  Early  Tran- 
sition (eleventh  and  twelfth  centuries). 

Extensive  borrowing  of  vocabulary  is  facilitated, 
as  we  have  seen  (pp.  153-4  ante),  by  fusion  of  race,  and 
it  is  not  until  some  time  after  the  Norman  Conquest 
that  Danish  words  appear  in  large  numbers.     Their 


i66  THE  ENGLISH  VOCABULARY 

appearance,  as  is  natural,  is  earlier  than  that  of  the 
Norman-French  element  as  a  considerable  factor  of 
the  vocabulary. 

Among  the  Scandinavian  words  which  appear  in 
the  writings  of  the  thirteenth  century,  and  which 
are  firmly  established  as  part  of  our  language,  are : 
M.E.  skinuy  skin  (which  has  replaced  O.K.  hyd, 
*hide,'  especially  as  applied  to  the  covering  of 
human  beings) ;  skill,  instead  of  O.E.  crceft,  'craft' ; 
z7/,  which  has  largely  taken  the  place  of  O.E.  seoc, 
'  sick,'  in  Standard  English ;  sky,  instead  of  O.E. 
uprodor ;  the  pronouns  they,  them,  their,  instead  of 
O.E.  hie,  heom,  hira,  which,  however,  are  still  used  in 
Chaucer.     (On  the  pronouns,  see  pp.  177-8  below.) 

Norman-French  Words  acquired  from  Norman 
spoken  in  England. 

In  the  Peterborough  Chronicle,  written  during  the 
first  half  of  the  twelfth  century,  we  already  find  a 
certain  number  of  these  words :  chaplain,  chancellor, 
empress,  countess,  peace,  court,  tower,  prison,  justice, 
treasure,  false,  false-hood,  etc.  The  earliest  to  pass  into 
English  were  naturally  the  names  of  offices,  officers, 
or  institutions  associated  with  the  new  order  of 
things  under  the  Normans.  All  the  above  are  of 
this  class,  with  the  exception  of  peace,  which  might 
have  been  expressed  quite  as  well  by  the  English 
frip,  now  lost. 

There  were  no  O.E.  words  for  titles,  apart  from 
duties.  The  English  earl,  a  common  word  in  O.E., 
implied  a  man  of  noble  or  gentle  blood,  and,  later, 
also  a  definite  office  under  the  King.    It  has  survived 


ENGLISH  AND  NORMAN  WORDS  167 

in  English  as  a  title,  but  countess,  the  name  for  the 
wife  of  the  earl,  in  the  new  sense,  comes  from  the 
Normans.  It  is  significant  that  while  the  most 
familiar  relationships  of  life — father,  mother,  brother, 
sister — are  English — the  remoter  connexions — uncle, 
aunt,  nephew,  niece — are  Norman. 

Some  words  have  survived  in  two  forms — one 
Norman  French,  the  other  from  the  Picard  Dialect. 
N.F.  chattel,  chase,  compared  with  Pic.  cattle,  catch, 
are  examples  of  this. 

Words  direct  from  Latin  came  into  English  in 
the  Early  Norman  period,  and  as  a  rule  they  have 
undergone  little  change.  Thus,  procession,  which 
occurs  in  the  Peterborough  Chronicle,  might  have 
been  borrowed  yesterday,  so  far  as  its  form  goes. 

Many  Norman  words  were  adopted  and  have 
remained,  for  which  the  English  equivalent  still 
survives : 

English.  I  kingdom,  I  folk,        I  wish,     ]  child,    I  thief,      I  bloom, 
French.    \  realm,        1  people,  |  desire,  |  infant,  |  robber,  \  flower, 

and  so  on. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  many  Norman 
words  which  have  entirely  displaced  the  English 
equivalents,  and  which  are  therefore  indispensable. 
Such  are  justice  (rihtcew),  chapel  (gebedhus),  peace 
{fri])),  crown  (cynehelm),  power  {onwald),  poor  (earm), 
turn  (verb,  wendan),  saint  [hdlga),  prison  {cweartcBrn), 
and  many  others.  The  English  word  is  preserved  in 
'All  Hallows:  -— 

Words  which  have  come  into  English  from 
Norman  French,  a  language  spoken  for  several 
hundreds  of  years  in  this  country,  and  others,  intro- 
duced from  other  French  dialects  during  the  M.E. 


i68  THE  ENGLISH  VOCABULARY 

period,  have  become  so  much  part  of  EngHsh  that 
they  are  not  felt  to  be  exotic  or  strange  in  any  way, 
and  are  as  essential  as  elements  of  speech  at  the 
present  day  as  the  words  of  the  old  native  English 
or  Scandinavian  stock.  It  is  calculated  that  about 
45  per  cent,  of  our  vocabulary  is  Norman  French. 

It  is  not  always  easy  to  distinguish  from  among 
the  French  words  common  in  M.E.  those  of  Anglo- 
Norman  or  Anglo-French  origin  from  those  which 
may  have  come  from  a  Continental  form. 

The  most  certain  of  the  latter  are  words  like 
catch,  compared  with  Norman  chase  (both  from  Latin 
captiare) ;  market,  compared  with  Central  French 
marche,  where  the  Picard  origin  is  shown  by  ck 
instead  of  ch. 

Other  words,  such  as  decoction,  hospitality,  existence, 
triumph,  which  are  found  in  the  works  of  Chaucer 
and  his  contemporaries,  and  for  which  a  Parisian 
origin  is  claimed,  might  have  come  direct  from  Latin, 
with  certain  modifications  of  form  to  adapt  them  to 
the  ordinary  pattern  of  English  (or  French-English) 
words.  We  may  contrast  Norman  French  convey, 
leal,  realm,  caitif,  with  Central  French  convoy,  loyal, 
royal,  captive.  The  last  is,  however,  a  learned  French 
form,  direct  from  Latin,  the  popular  form  being  chetif. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  many  words  of  purely 
Latin  origin  and  form  were  incorporated  into  English 
from  the  Vulgate.  These  were  generally  modijfied 
according  to  the  French  model  in  dealing  with  such 
words.  Some  Latin  words  from  this  source  belong- 
ing to  the  M.E.  period  are  benediction  (the  popular 
form  of  which  is  benison),  corrupt,  aggravate. 

Such  words,   however,  are  of  little  interest  con- 


ITALIAN  LOAN-WORDS  169 

sidered  as  typical  M.E.  borrowings,  since  if  they 
were  borrowed  to-day  direct  from  Latin  they  would 
receive  precisely  the  same  forms.  Latin  words 
borrowed  since,  or  even  during,  the  late  O.E.  period 
from  literary  sources  have  undergone  practically  no 
change,  beyond  that  involved  by  the  change  of  vowel 
sounds  which  has  taken  place  during  the  Modern 
period.  These  changes  affect  also  our  pronunciation 
of  Latin  itself. 

Other  Foreign  Influences  during  M.E.  Period. 

Italian, — The  word,  pilgrim  appears  to  be  from  Old 
Ital.  pelegrino,  '  wanderer,'  the  Old  Fr.  form  being 
pelerin.  This  word  was  no  doubt  acquired  direct  by 
persons  who  went  on  pilgrimages  to  Rome. 

Other  words  of  Italian  origin  which  were  intro- 
duced during  the  M.E.  period,  not  direct,  but  through 
French,  were:  alarm,  from  Italian  allearme ;  florin, 
the  Old  Fr,  form  of  Italian  florino ;  and  brigand, 
Ital.  brigante. 

There  are  a  few  words  of  Arabic  origin  which  got 
into  English  in  the  M.E.  period  through  French, 
from  Spanish,  such  as  sugar,  alembic. 

The  Loan-Words  of  the  Modern  Period. 

The  principal  sources  of  these  are  Latin,  Greek, 
Spanish,  Italian,  French,  and  some  few  from  out- 
landish tongues,  such  as  tobacco  and  potato,  through 
Spanish  from  the  language  of  Hayti. 

The  literary  language  of  the  sixteenth  century 
does  not,  on  the  whole,  show  a  heavily  Latinized 
vocabulary.     The  Prayer  Books  of  Edward  VI.  con- 


I70  THE  ENGLISH  VOCABULARY 

tain  few  words  which  are  not  at  least  in  hterary  use 
at  the  present  day.  A  beautiful  phrase,  '  the  immar- 
cescible  crown  of  glory,'  occurs,  it  is  true,  in  the 
later  versions  with  the  Latin  word  changed  to  '  never- 
fading.'  At  a  later  date,  Francis  Bacon  crowds  his 
writings  with  Latin  words  in  a  thin  English  disguise, 
which  have  never  obtained  a  footing  in  the  language, 
and  the  same  is  largely  true  of  Sir  Thomas  Browne 
in  the  next  century.  The  taste  for  a  Latinized 
diction  fluctuates  from  age  to  age,  and  among 
different  classes  of  writers  and  speakers.  There  are 
very  few  of  these  later  Latin  words  that  we  cannot 
very  well  dispense  with.  Words  like  megatory  and 
meticulous  can  generally  be  replaced  with  advantage 
by  genuine  English  words.  However,  a  good  writer 
or  speaker  may  occasionally  use  an  exotic  word  with 
telling  effect,  the  slight  vagueness  of  the  new  coinages 
frequently  imparting  a  certain  suggestiveness  to  a 
rhetorical  phrase. 

Italian  influence,  which  began  again,  after  the 
time  of  Chaucer,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  and  has 
continued  more  or  less  ever  since,  has  given  us  many 
words  relating  to  art,  and  also  to  objects  of  every- 
day life,  which  are  familiar  to  all.  Balcony,  broccoli, 
colonel,  gondola,  gusto,  macaroni,  musket,  umbrella,  are 
a  few  words  of  this  origin  which  we  could  hardly  do 
without. 

Spanish  influence  was  not  inconsiderable  in  the 
sixteenth  century,  through  literature,  through  the 
Court,  and  through  the  navigators  who  explored  the 
New  World.  Alcove,  don,  dulcimer,  lackey,  commodore, 
flotilla,  coral,  ranch,  cork,  are  enough  to  show  how 
essential  some  Spanish  words  have  become. 


SPANISH— MODERN  FRENCH  17.1 

The  Greek  element  is  chiefly  of  modern  introduc- 
tion, and  is  used  much  to  express  sciences  and 
scientific  conceptions.  Words  of  this  kind  are 
being  coined  every  day,  and  they  offer  no  difficulty 
in  recognition.  Such  words  as  geology,  chiropody, 
phonograph,  philology,  telescope,  telegraph,  etc.,  are 
easily  explained  by  the  help  of  a  Greek  Lexicon  or 
a  good  English  Dictionary.  It  is  interesting  to 
observe  that  words  like  these — the  concoctions,  for 
the  most  part,  or  at  least  the  borrowings,  of  the 
learned,  very  often  become  perfectly  popular  words 
which  every  child  knows  and  uses. 

There  are  other  words,  which  are  ultimately  of 
Greek  origin,  which  have  filtered  into  English 
through  the  medium  of  other  languages,  chiefly 
French,  which  are  much  older,  and  often  less  easy 
to  distinguish.  Such  are  blame,  currant,  dropsy ,  fancy , 
surgeon.  The  last  appeared  already  in  M.E.,  from 
the  shortened  Old  French  form  surgien ;  the  longer 
form  chirurgeon,  also  from  a  later  French  source, 
was  used  in  English  in  the  eighteenth  century,  and 
chirurgien  is  the  only  form  now  used  in  French. 

The  Modern  French  loans  are  easily  distinguished 
from  the  older  strata  by  their  pronunciation.  They 
retain  as  far  as  possible  the  French  sounds.  Con- 
trast the  pronunciation  of  ch  in  chandelier,  machine, 
papier-mache,  chatelaine,  cachet,  etc.,  with  that  of  the 
M.E.  loans  chivalry,  chandler,  chine,  chief,  etc.  Com- 
pare, again,  the  initial  and  final  consonants  of  the 
old  word  judge  (Old  Fr.  juge)  with  those  in  genre, 
rouge,  etc.  Again,  note  the  pronunciation  of  suave, 
cache,  vase,  ennui  (Norman  annoy),  migraine,  soiree, 
Bon  Marche,  etc. 


172  THE  ENGLISH  VOCABULARY 

We  have  now  enumerated  the  principal  sources 
from  which  our  vocabulary  has  been  enriched.  Those 
who  wish  to  make  a  more  detailed  study  of  this 
aspect  of  the  language  should  consult  Professor 
Jespersen's  Growth  and  Structure  of  the  English  Lan- 
guage, and  Professor  Skeat's  Principles  of  English 
Etymology. 


CHAPTER  XII 

ENGLISH  INFLEXIONS 

It  will  be  unnecessary  for  our  present  purpose  to  do 
more  than  attempt  to  throw  some  light  upon  those 
few  inflexions  which  remain  in  Mod.  Eng.  by  tracing 
them  to  their  earlier  forms. 

The  Articles. 

(a)  Definite  Article. — The  (note  its  three  pronun- 
ciations in  Mod.  Eng.,  p.  72  (7)  ante)  appears  as  an 
uninflected  form  as  early  as  the  twelfth  century.  In 
O.E.  the  definite  article,  which  was  really  a  demon- 
strative pronoun,  was  fully  declined  in  all  three 
genders,  and  in  both  numbers.  The  Nominative 
Masculine  Singular  was  se,  the  Feminine  seo,  the 
Neuter  ]>cet.  Se  in  Transition  English  becomes  ])e 
through  the  influence  of  the  other  cases,  which  all 
had  an  initial  ]>  (th).  The  eighteenth  century  spelling 
ye  for  the,  and  the  contraction  y^  for  that,  are  reminis- 
cences of  the  old  symbol  ]>.  Y  here  was,  of  course, 
always  pronounced  as  th. 

A  trace  of  the  old  Accusative  Masculine  survives 
in  the  expression  for  the  nonce ;  earlier  for  then  ones. 
The  n  of  the  Accusative  has  become  attached  to  the 
following  word,  just  as  in  Mod.  Eng.  the  pronuncia- 
tion a  negg  for  an  egg  is  often  heard. 

173 


174  ENGLISH  INFLEXIONS 

The  old  Neuter  ]>cBt  survives  in  the  now  obsolete 
or  vulgar  f other,  earlier  the  father,  from  li>et  d]>er, 

(b)  Indefinite  Article. — In  Mod.  Eng.  an  before 
vowels,  a  before  consonants.  This  word  was  originally 
the  numeral  an,  '  one.'  Being  unstressed  when  used 
as  an  article,  it  was  shortened  before  the  change  of 
O.E.  a  to  0  (cf.  p.  134  above).  Historically  speaking, 
we  must  say  that  the  n  of  an  was  retained  before 
vowels,  but  not  before  consonants. 

Several  words  have  acquired  an  initial  n  from  a 
'  wrong '  analysis  of  the  original  form  in  combination 
with  an.  Newt  stands  for  an  ewt  (O.E.  efeta) ;  the  form 
eft  and  the  provincial  ewt  represent  the  earlier  form. 

On  the  other  hand,  other  words  have  lost  an 
initial  n  by  a  similar  syllable  division.  Thus,  an 
apron  is  from  earlier  a  naperon  {cf.  Scotch  napery) ; 
an  umpire  is  a  numpire  (French  nonpair) ;  an  adder 
stands  for  a  nadder  (O.E.  n^ddre). 

Declension  of  Nouns. 

This  has  been  reduced  to  the  simplest  form,  since 
only  the  possessive  case  singular  and  the  plural 
number  are  expressed  in  speech. 

The  written  language  puts  an  apostrophe  before 
the  s  of  the  possessive — man's,  dog's,  etc. — because  it 
was  formerly  believed  that  -s  was  a  '  corruption  '  of 
his — the  man  his  hat,  etc.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  this 
suffix  represents  an  old  -es  {cf  pp.  37,  38  above,  for 
the  various  forms  of  this  suffix,  and  that  of  the  plural 
in  s,  in  the  spoken  language).  Chaucer  still  retains 
a  Feminine  suffix  in  -e  for  the  possessive  {cf  In  hope 
to  stonden  in  his  Ladye  grace). 

There   are   four  main   types  of  Plurals   in   Mod. 


THE  PLURAL  OF  SUBSTANTIVES  175 

Eng. :  (i)  Those  which  take  the  suffix  -s,  etc.,  which 
include  nearly  all  the  words  in  the  language ; 
(2)  those  which  take  -en — ox-en ;  (3)  those  which 
change  the  vowel — mouse,  mice,  etc. ;  (4)  those  which 
make  no  change — deer,  sheep.  Although  the  written 
language  distinguishes  the  Possessive  Plural  from 
the  Singular  by  writing  the  apostrophe  after  the  -s — 
dogs',  cats',  etc. — there  is,  of  course,  no  real  difference 
between  the  Possessive  Plural  and  that  of  the 
Singular  in  Class  (i). 

Class  (i)  was  represented  in  O.E.  by  words  which 
added  -as  to  the  Nominative  and  Accusative  Plural ; 
in  M.E.  this  became  -es,  and  in  Mod.  Eng.  the  vowel 
has  been  lost  in  pronunciation,  except  after  s  or  sh — 
kisses,  fishes,  etc.  Words  of  this  class  were  all  Masculine 
in  O.E.,  but  in  M.E.  the  class  was  largely  extended. 

Side  by  side  with  this  type  of  declension,  there 
existed  also  in  O.E.  the  so-called  Weak  Declension, 
which  formed  the  Nominative  and  Accusative  Plural 
by  the  addition  of  the  suffix  -an,  in  M.E.  -en.  This 
was  a  large  class  in  O.E.  In  M.E.  the  Northern 
and  Midland  dialects  reduced  it,  while  the  Saxon 
dialects  increased  it.  In  Modern  Standard  English 
the  Midland  habit  has  prevailed,  with  the  result  that 
we  have  only  ox-en,  brethr-en,  childr-en.  The  r  in  the 
last  word  is  itself  the  remains  of  an  old  Plural  suffix 
— O.E.  cild-ru. 

Class  (3),  or  the  Mutation-plurals,  was  considerably 
larger  in  O.E.  The  change  of  vowel  is  due  to  the 
process  described  above  (pp.  129- 131).  Goat,  shroud, 
cow,  hook,  are  among  the  words  which  in  O.E.  had  a 
mutated  vowel  in  the  Plural,  and  also  in  the  Dative 
Singular.     In  the  words  which  retain  the  mutation 


176  ENGLISH    INFLEXIONS 

in  Mod.  Eng.  this  only  appears  in  the  Plural,  the 
whole  singular  being  the  unmutated  type. 

It  should  be  noted  that  all  the  survivals  of  this 
declension  in  Mod.  Eng.  are  common,  familiar  words, 
as  only  such  could  resist  the  tendency  to  level  all 
declension  under  one  type.  The  form  kye,  Plural 
of  cow,  in  Northern  Dialects  is  the  old  mutated  form ; 
the  poetical  kine  is  a  double  plural  with  both  muta- 
tion and  the  -n  suffix  of  the  Weak  Declension. 

Class  (4)  represents  old  Neuter  words,  which 
in  O.E.  remained  unchanged  in  Nominative  and 
Accusative  Plural.  The  whole  of  these,  with  the 
exception  of  the  two  mentioned  above,  have  been 
levelled  under  the  general  type  which  takes  -s,  etc.,  in 
the  Plural.  Wife,  house,  calf,  and  many  others, 
originally  belonged  to  this  class.  Traces  of  an  old 
Dative  Plural  in  -itm  survive  in  whilom,  O.E.  hwlluni, 
'  at  times,'  and  in  seldom.  The  former  was  a  noun, 
the  latter  an  adjective  meaning  '  rare.'  The  Dative 
Singular  and  Plural  were  often  used  adverbially. 

Comparison  of  Adjectives. 

The  old  declension  of  adjectives  has  been  com- 
pletely lost,  and  concord  is  no  longer  possible ;  only 
comparison  remains  to  be  mentioned. 

The  comparative  suffix  -er,  and  the  superlative  -est, 
represent  old  formative  elements  which  are  used  in 
M.E.  and  O.E. 

At  the  present  time  only  elder  and  eldest,  derived 
from  old,  show  mutated  forms,  but  in  O.E.  young, 
long,  strong,  and  several  others,  also  had  a  change 
of  vowel  in  comparative  and  superlative.  This  was 
again  the  result  of  z-mutation,  for  originally  there 


APPARENT  ANOMALIES  IN  COMPARISON      177 

were  two  types :  -or-  in  comparative  and  -ost-  in 
superlative,  which  wrought  no  change  in  the  pre- 
ceding vowel ;  and  -ir-,  -ist-,  which  produced  the 
modification.  Elder,  eldest,  are  survivals  of  this  latter 
type,  and  are  now  used  with  a  different  sense  from 
older,  oldest.  These  are,  of  course,  new  formations 
from  the  positive  old,  and  not  the  descendants  of  the 
old  comparative  and  superlative. 

There  are  some  adjectives  which,  from  the  earliest 
period,  use  in  the  other  degrees,  forms  from  an 
altogether  different  root  from  that  from  which  gave 
rise  to  the  positive.  Such  are  good,  better,  best ;  bad, 
worse,  worst.  The  form  worse  appears  strange  as  a 
comparative,  and,  in  fact,  a  very  natural  feeling  for 
analogy  has  produced  a  form  wovser.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  old  comparative  suffix  lurks  in  the  s  of 
worse.  The  ordinary  O.E.  suffix  is  -ira-  or  -ora-,  but 
this  stands  for  an  earlier  -iza-,  -oza-  (still  found  in 
Gothic),  and  the  z  is  produced  from  a  still  earlier  -s-, 
which,  under  certain  conditions  of  the  accent,  at  a 
very  primitive  period  was  voiced — i.e.,  became  z. 
In  worse  these  conditions  were  apparently  not 
present,  with  the  result  that  the  -s-  remains.  The 
O.E.  form  was  wyrsa,  from  an  older  wtLrsisa{n). 

Pronouns. 

The  following  forms  of  the  personal  pronouns  are 
normally  developed  from  the  corresponding  earlier 
forms,  and  call  for  no  remark  :  /,  thou,  thee,  he,  we,  us. 
The  objective  case  of  the  ist  person,  me,  now  does 
duty  both  for  Accusative  and  Dative;  originally  it 
was  an  Accusative  form. 

Hint  is  also  an  old  Dative  ;  the  original  Accusative, 

12 


178  ENGLISH   INFLEXIONS 

O.E.  June,  having  been  lost,  except  inasmuch  as  it 
survives  in  provincial  dialects  as  '  tm.'  The  Feminine 
Nominative  she  is  rather  difficult  to  explain.  In 
O.E.  it  was  hed,  which  in  M.E.  became  in  some 
dialects  he,  and  was  thus  indistinguishable  from  the 
Masculine.  In  O.E.  the  Feminine  demonstrative 
pronoun,  or  definite  article,  sed  was  often  used 
simply  as  a  personal  pronoun.  It  has  been  suggested 
that  she  is  a  mixture  of  both  forms,  but  this  offers 
difficulties.  At  any  rate,  a  form  spelt  scce  occurs  in 
the  Peterborough  Chronicle,  and  this  is  apparently 
the  ancestor  of  our  form,  though  how  it  arose  we  do 
not  exactly  know. 

You  is  an  old  Accusative  and  Dative  Plural, 
although  now  used  as  a  Nominative  both  in  the 
Singular  and  Plural.  The  obsolete  ye  is  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  old  Nominative  Plural.  Ye  is  used 
already  in  the  seventeenth  century,  indifferently  as 
a  Nominative  or  an  obhque  case,  as  may  be  seen 
from  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  Bible. 

They  and  them  are  of  Scandinavian  origin,  and 
have  replaced  the  English  forms  hiy  hem^  the  latter 
of  which  Chaucer  still  uses. 

The  obsolete  or  very  colloquial  'em  is  not  a  con- 
traction of  them,  but  is  the  old  hem,  with  the  initial 
aspirate  lost  through  want  of  stress. 

In  the  same  way  it,  from  an  earlier  hit  (still  re- 
tained in  Scotch),  has  lost  its  h. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  rapid  speech  all  the  pro- 
nouns which  begin  with  h — he,  him,  his,  her — lose  the 
aspirate  when  unstressed,  and  are  thus  on  all  fours 
with  'em,  it,  and  the  provincial  *  un,'  from  hiney  which 
has  been  already  mentioned. 


THE  PRONOUNS 


Possessive  Pronouns. 


179 


The  forms  my,  mine,  thy,  thine,  his,  her,  your,  our, 
are  the  old  Genitives  of  the  personal  pronouns.  In 
O.E.  they  were  used  as  simple  Genitives  after  certain 
verbs ;  for  instance,  as  God  ure  helpe,  *  God  help  us,' 
were  also  used  as  possessive  adjectives,  most  of  them 
in  that  case  being  fully  inflected— 7;u;^ra  (Genitive 
Plural),  etc. 

The  O.E.  forms  mm,  ]un,  were  retained  in  M.E.  in 
their  full  forms,  but  later  on  lost  n  before  words 
beginning  with  a  consonant.  My,  thy,  are  thus  from 
M.E.  ml,  ]u  ;  mine,  thine,  from  the  forms  before  vowels. 

His  has  no  distinguishing  ahsolnte  form,  but  to  the 
analogy  of  this  unvarying  form  with  s  are  doubtless 
due  the  forms  hers,  ours,  yours. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  n  in  thine,  mine,  gives  rise 
to  the  vulgar  hisn,  hern,  yoiirn,  ourn. 

His  was  the  Genitive  not  only  of  the  Masculine 
Pronoun,  but  also  of  the  Neuter  hit,  and  was  so  used 
down  to  the  sixteenth  century,  when  we  find  both 
his  and  simply  it,  where  we  should  use  its.  The 
latter  was  first  used  in  the  seventeenth  century,  and 
was  a  new  formation,  on  the  analogy  of  his. 

Their  is  Scandinavian,  and  has  replaced  the 
English  form  hir,  which  Chaucer  still  uses. 

Demonstrative  Pronouns. 

This  is  the  old  Neuter  form  of  the  pronoun  with 
the  same  meaning.  The  Plural  these  appears  to  be 
derived  from  the  Feminine  Singular  of  the  same  word. 

That  is  the  old  Neuter  Singular  of  the  definite 
article   and    demonstrative    pronoun — Masculine   se 

12 — 2 


i8o  ENGLISH  INFLEXIONS 

(whence  the  indedinable  the ;  cf.  p.  173  above), 
Feminine  seo,  Neuter  \icBt.  Those  is  from  O.E.  fas, 
the  Plural  of  \>cs  (Masculine),  ]>cds  (Feminine,  whence 
these) y  J>w  (Neuter). 

Relatives  and  Intevrogatives. 

The  Mod.  Eng.  relatives  which,  who,  were  originally 
only  interrogatives. 

In  O.E.  hwa,  *  who  '  (of  persons),  and  the  Neuter 
hwcet,  '  what,'  were  used  as  substantives ;  hwelby 
hwilcy  *  which,'  was  used  both  as  a  substantive  and 
as  an  adjective.  The  definite  article  or  demon- 
strative se,  seo,  \>cst,  was  used  relatively,  either  alone 
or  with  the  relative  particle  \e ;  and  that  is  still  so 
used  in  Modern  Enghsh. 

Verbs. 

The  two  main  classes  of  verbs  in  English  are  the 
Weak,  which  form  their  past  tense  and  past  participle 
by  the  addition  of  -ed,  -d,  or  -t  to  the  stem  ;  and  the 
Strong,  which  do  not  add  these  suffixes,  but  undergo 
a  change  in  the  root  vowel. 

The  Present  Indicative. 

The  inflexions  of  this  tense  are  the  same  in  all 
regular  verbs,  whether  strong  or  weak. 

I  love  ]  we     ] 

thou  lovest  I  you    [love. 

he  loves,  loveth  j  they  ) 

The  now  obsolete  forms  lov-est,  lov-eth,  represent 
the  M.E.  Southern  types  ;  the  latter  is  also  Midland. 
The  usual  love-s  is  characteristic  of  Northern  in  M.E. 
The  Plural  in  M.E.  was  -es  in  the  North,  and  this 


VERBAL  INFLEXION  i8i 

Still  survives  in  the  Modern  Northern  dialects  and 
in  Scotch.  In  the  South  the  Plural  suffix  was  -eth, 
now  completely  lost,  but  still  used  by  Chaucer,  along 
with  other  forms,  and  by  Wycliff.  The  Midland 
suffix  of  the  Plural  present  in  M.E.  was  -en,  which 
is  the  usual  form  in  Chaucer,  and  from  which  our 
present  flexionless  form  is  derived.  The  weakening, 
and  even  the  occasional  dropping,  of  the  final  -n  is 
found  in  Chaucer,  and  by  the  beginning  of  the  six- 
teenth century  these  also  had  disappeared  from  pro- 
nunciation. 

Present  Participle. 

The  Mod.  Eng.  suffix  -ing  is  not  an  old  participial 
ending.  The  Present  Participle  in  O.K.  was  -end,  and 
in  M.E.  this  is  still  retained  as  -ind{e)  in  the  South, 
-end{e)  in  the  Midlands,  -and{e)  in  the  North.  This 
suffix  was  replaced  during  the  M.E.  period  by  the 
ending  -ing,  which  was  originally  used  in  substan- 
tives derived  from  verbs,  such  as  O.E.  leornung  or 
horning,  learning.'  This  is  the  ancestor  of  our 
present  form,  used  in  the  participle  of  all  verbs.  In 
'  Bydand;  the  motto  of  the  Gordons,  the  old  form 
still  survives. 

The  Preterite  and  Past  Participle. 

A.  Weak  Verbs —  (i)  Regular  Forms. — The  O.E. 
suffixes  were  -ode  or  -ede,  -od  or  -ed,  respectively. 
This  distinction  is  lost  in  M.E.,  which  levels  all 
unstressed  vowels  under  -e,  and,  in  fact,  in  O.E. 
itself  the  two  types  were  often  confused  through 
Analogy. 

In  Mod.  Eng.  the  final  -e  is,  of  course,  lost,  and  the 


i82  ENGLISH  INFLEXIONS 

suffix  is  further  shortened  by  the  loss  of  the  vowel 
before  the  -d-  in  the  majority  of  verbs — lov'd,  etc. — 
in  pronunciation.  After  -d-  or  4-,  however,  the  e 
is  retained  in  pronunciation — e.g.,  rott-ed,  want-ed, 
load-ed,  etc.  After  voiceless  consonants  other  than  t 
the  -d-  is  unvoiced,  and  this  fact  is  sometimes  ex- 
pressed in  the  spelling,  though  not  at  all  conse- 
quently. The  unvoicing  takes  place  in  washed  = 
'  wsishty'  fetched  =  ' feicht,'  kissed  ==' kist,'  etc.  The 
Past  Participle  appears  more  often  written  with  t  in 
the  conventional  spelling  than  the  Preterite  whipt^ 
especially  when  used  adjectivally  ;  *  a  whipt  cur,'  and 
learnt  are  received  as  proper,  while  to  write  he  learnt 
his  lesson,  he  past  away,  and  still  more  he  smasht  his  arm, 
would  be  considered  licentious. 

(2)  Weak  Preterites  with  Change  of  Vowel  and  Con- 
sonantal Change. — The  verbs  seek  —  sought,  buy  — 
bought,  teach — taught,  think — thought,  require  a  few 
words  of  explanation.  The  change  of  vowel  is  the 
result  of  the  z-mutation  process,  already  discussed 
(pp.  129-131  above);  the  consonantal  changes  are 
mostly,  in  origin,  due  to  tendencies  of  change  which 
occurred  in  the  Continental  period. 
-ir  As  regards  the  fact  that  the  ^'-mutation  is  absent 
in  the  Preterite,  but  occurs  in  the  Present  and  the 
Infinitive,  this  circumstance  is  due  to  the  absence  of 
the  necessary  conditions  in  the  Preterite  to  bring 
about  the  change  of  vowel.  Thus  we  must  suppose 
that  the  old  Infinitives  were  sok-jan,  hug-jan ;  tdk-jan, 
]>unk-jan,  respectively;  and  the  Presents  sok-ja  (ist 
person),  bug-ja,  etc.,  in  all  of  which  forms  the  muta- 
tion would  be  normal.  The  Preterites,  however, 
must  have  been  sohta,  bohta,  tdhta,  \>dhta,     O.E.  has 


'CAUGHT'  FORMED  ON  AN  ENGLISH  MODEL      183 

two  forms  for  the  Preterite  of  *  teach  ' — namely,  tahte 
(whence  our  taught)  and  tcehte,  which  has  been  lost. 
The  vowel  in  the  latter  form  is  a  mutated  form  of 
O.E.  a,  and  it  can  only  be  due  here  to  the  analogy 
of  the  Present  and  Infinitive. 

The  fact  that  O.E.  has  sdhtCj  etc.,  in  the  Preterite  is 
to  be  explained  from  a  very  early  change,  whereby 
the  combination  -kt-  became  -ht- ;  that  is,  a  hack-stop 
became  a  hack-open-consonant,  Sdhte  (ancestor  of 
sought)  is  from  an  earlier  sokta,  and  this  from  still 
earlier  sok-da,  the  d  being  unvoiced  by  the  preceding 
voiceless  consonant. 

O.E.  ]whte  goes  back  to  earlier  \ank-ta,  which 
becomes  first  \anhta,  and  then  loses  the  nasal  con- 
sonant (n)  before  A,  which  is  a  universal  habit  in  the 
early  Germanic  languages.  But  before  disappearing, 
the  n  imparted  its  nasal  quality  to  the  preceding  ^, 
producing  a  sound  like  that  in  French  sang,  etc. 
This  nasal  vowel  was  rounded  to  0  in  Primitive  O.E., 
and  later  on  the  nasalization  was  lost,  being  replaced 
by  lengthening  of  the  vowel.  As  a  result  of  all  these 
processes,  which  are  perfectly  regular  in  Germanic 
and  O.E.,  we  get  the  O.E.  form  \6hte. 

In  connexion  with  this  class  of  verbs,  we  must 
also  consider  the  case  of  catch — caught.  This  is  a 
word  of -Picard-French  origin,  and  appears  in  M.E. 
as  cacchen,  with  the  usual  English  verbal  suffixes. 
There  are  two  forms  of  Preterite  in  M.E.  cacchede, 
which  gives  the  now  obsolete  English  catched  and 
caughte,  whence  the  form  we  employ.  The  inter- 
change of  consonants  in  cacche — caughte  would  be 
normal  if  the  word  had  been  a  genuine  English 
word,  but  could  not  possibly  take  place  by  ordinary 


i84  ENGLISH  INFLEXIONS 

phonetic  change  in  a  word  not  introduced  into  the 
language  till  the  M.E.  period.  But  the  change  is 
very  common  in  English  verbs  in  O.K.,  and,  in  fact, 
there  is  actually  an  O.K.  word  meaning  '  to  catch  ' 
which  shows  this  change  :  hecean — lahte,  which  in 
M.E.  was  lacchen — laughte.  What,  then,  more  natural 
than  that  on  the  model  of  this  old  verb  a  new 
Preterite  caiighte  should  be  formed  for  cacchen  ?  The 
two  words  were  sometimes  used  in  the  same  sentence, 
and  the  old  naturally  influences  the  new.  Thus,  the 
phrase  *  he  laughte  and  caughte  '  (he  seized  and 
caught)  actually  occurs. 

(3)  Weak  Verbs  which  have  a  Shortened  Vowel  in  the 
Preterite. — The  short  vowels  in  such  Preterites  as 
fed  from  feed,  hid  from  hidey  are  the  result  of  a  M.E. 
shortening  before  a  double  consonant,  which  has  been 
already  referred  to  {cf.  p.  133  (2)  above).  The  O.E. 
had  Inhmiiw e  fedan,  Preterite /e^-^^,  Infinitive  hydan, 
Preterite  hyd-de,  whence  in  M.E.  hidde^  fcdde.  The 
Infinitives  of  these  words  preserved  the  long  vowels, 
which  developed  in  the  normal  way. 

The  verb  slide  was  in  O.E.  slidaji,  a  strong  verb, 
with  Preterite  sldd,  but  ^  has  been  assimilated  to  the 
group  we  are  discussing. 

Weep — wept,  from  O.E.  wepan — wep-te  (originally  a 
strong  verb),  shows  the  usual  M.E.  shortening  of  a 
long  vowel  before  a  combination  of  consonants  [cf, 
p.  133  (2)  above). 

The  unvoicing  of  the  d  in  the  suffix  of  the  Preterite 
sent  took  place  already  in  M.E. 

B.  Strong  Verbs. — Such  verbs  as  sit — sat — sat  ; 
sing — sang — sung  ;  write — wrote — written  ;  see — saw — 
seen,    owe   the   interchange   of    vowels    to   changes 


ANOMALOUS  VERBS  185 

which  took  place  far  back  in  the  past,  before  the  in- 
dependent existence  of  English,  or  even  of  Germanic. 
These  changes  were  due  purely  to  phonetic  causes, 
and  had  originally  nothing  to  do  with  differences  of 
meaning  (see  p.  197  below). 

There  was  far  more  variety  in  O.E.  than  at  the 
present  day,  as  in  many  cases  the  vowels  of  the 
Singular  and  Plural  Preterite  were  different,  as  in — 


Inf. 

Pret.  Sing. 

Pret.  PI. 

Past.  Partic. 

giefan,  '  give.' 

gecif. 

gcafoii. 

giefen. 

sittcn,  '  sit.' 

scvt. 

Sivton. 

seten. 

sebn,  'see.' 

seah. 

sawon. 

sewen. 

In  M.E.,  however,  this  variety  was  simplified,  and 
the  Singular  and  Plural  were  levelled  under  the  same 
vowel. 

The  Past  Participle  always  had  the  suffix  -en  in 
O.E.,  which  in  Mod.  Eng.  is  retained  in  a  few  forms— 
ridden,  written,  home,  taken — but  is  more  often  dropped. 

Many  verbs  originally  Strong  are  now  included 
among  Weak  verbs — e.g.,  climb,  help,  melt. 

On  the  other  hand,  stick,  wear,  swear,  which  are 
now  Strong,  were  formerly  Weak. 

C.  Anomalous  Verbs — (i)  Preterite  Present  Verbs, 
— The  forms  can,  dare,  shall,  may,  now,  as  in  O.E., 
used  as  Presents,  are,  so  far  as  their  form  goes,  old 
Preterites.  This  is  the  reason  that  they  have  no  -s 
in  the  3rd  Person  Singular.  The  past  tenses  of  these 
are  derived  from  the  old  forms  ci^e,  M.E.  cotide  (with 
change  of  ]>  to  d)  ;  scolde,  mihte,  respectively.  The 
O.E.  forms  were  new  formations,  to  take  the  place 
of  the  old  Preterites  used  as  Presents.  Dare  is  also 
used    as    an     indefinite    verb    meaning    '  to     have 


i86  ENGLISH  INFLEXIONS 

courage,'  in  which  case  it  is  inflected  dares  in  3rd 
Person  Singular,  like  a  regular  verb. 

The  verb  7Jiust,  now  used  both  as  Present  and 
Preterite,  is  derived  from  O.E.  mdste,  which  was  a 
new  formation,  used  only  as  a  Preterite.  Mod.  Eng. 
has  lost  the  O.E.  form  mot  of  this  verb,  which  was 
used  as  a  Present,  although  Preterite  in  form.  Had 
it  survived,  it  must  have  become  '  moot.'' 

Ought  is,  like  must,  the  descendant  of  the  O.E. 
Preterite — ahte  in  this  case.  The  O.E.  form  age  used 
as  the  Present  of  this  verb  has  become  Mod.  Eng.  owe, 
with  a  different  meaning,  and  with  a  new  Past,  owed. 
The  meaning  of  O.E.  agaii  (Infinitive),  agCy  dhte,  was 
*  possess.'  This,  in  the  Mod.  Eng.  forms  of  this  verb, 
has  developed  the  meaning  '  to  possess  an  obligation,' 
to  *  owe,'  and,  further,  the  more  abstract  meaning 
which  we  find  in  ought. 

Will  is  an  old  Subjunctive  Preterite  in  form,  used 
as  a  Present  in  O.E.,  which  had  wolde,  whence  our 
would,  as  a  Preterite. 

It  may  be  observed  that  all  these  Preterite  Present 
verbs,  as  well  as  the  auxiliary  verbs  have,  do,  need, 
and  be,  are  the  only  verbs  in  English  which  can  take 
the  negative  particle  7iot  immediately  after  them. 

(2)  To  he,  etc.  We  retain  in  the  Mod.  Eng.  in- 
flexion of  this  v/ord  three  quite  distinct  roots — is  and 
are  (from  same  root) ;  he — heen  ;  was — were.  The  -m  of 
the  1st  Person  vSingular  is  the  sole  remaining  survivor 
in  Mod.  Eng.  of  a  class  of  verbs  which  took  this  suffix, 
originally  probably  the  pronoun  of  the  ist  Person 
and  cognate  with  me.  It  is  to  be  found  also  in 
Latin  sum  and  inqua-m,  and  in  Greek  ei^ii,  earlier 
esmi. 


INTERCHANGE  OF  '5'  AND  'A^'  187 

The  interchange  of  s — r  in  is — arc,  was — were,  is 
originally  an  interchange  between  voiceless  s  and 
voiced  z,  and  is  due  to  the  change  which  we  noted  in 
worse,  compared  with  the  ordinary  comparative  suffix 
with  r  (from  earlier  z). 

The  Preterite  went,  used  in  the  conjugation  of  go, 
is,  of  course,  from  a  root  of  quite  different  origin 
from  this  latter.  O.E.  had  a  verb  wendan,  used  as 
a  reflexive  verb  meaning  '  go,'  with  a  Preterite  wende  ; 
from  this  the  form  went  is  taken.  When  used  as 
an  active  verb  in  Mod.  Eng.,  to  wend  takes  the 
Preterite  wended. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

THE  PLACE  OF  ENGLISH  AMONG 
OTHER  LANGUAGES— CONCLUDING  REMARKS 

It  will  readily  be  believed  that  the  English  language 
does  not  stand  alone  among  the  languages  of  the 
earth,  a  solitary  if  splendid  monument  of  human 
genius,  entirely  unrelated  to  other  forms  of  speech. 
To  this  conclusion  we  are  led,  not  only  from  the 
fact  that  English  did  not  come  into  existence,  in 
these  islands  in  the  prehistoric  past,  but  was 
introduced  here,  within  the  historical  period,  from 
the  Continent  of  Europe,  a  fully  formed  language, 
bearing  signs  of  a  past  history,  but  also  from  the 
close  resemblance,  in  many  respects,  which  English 
bears  to  other  languages — a  resemblance  far  too  strong 
to  be  the  result  of  chance.* 

We  have  considered  at  some  length,  in  an  earlier 
chapter,  the  question  of  loan-words — words  borrowed 
into  English  from  Latin,  Danish,  French,  Italian, 
and  other  languages.  We  have  seen  that  many  of 
these  borrowed  words  preserve,  pretty  faithfully,  the 
forms  of  the  languages  from  which  they  were 
borrowed,  allowing  for  the  differences  made  in 
adapting  them  to  English  mouths,  and  considering 


LOAN-WORDS  AND  COGNATES  189 

the  changes  which  time  works  in  all  words,  even  in 
those  which  were  English  from  the  beginning. 

But  there  are  other  cases  of  words  in  English, 
which  are  certainly  not  borrowed  from  Latin,  which 
yet    bear    an    unmistakable    resemblance    to    Latin 
words.     For  instance,  while  there  is  no  doubt  that 
such  words  as  fraternity,  unity,  essence,  dentist,  aural, 
domestic,  and  many  others,  are  practically  Latin  pure 
and  simple,   it   can   hardly  escape      Dtice   that  the 
root  words  in  Latin  from  which  the/  are  borrowed, 
or  with  which  they  are  connected,  are  curiously  like 
corresponding  words  of  genuine  English  origin.  Thus, 
frdter — brother;  unus,  un-itas — one;  essentem,  essent-ia 
— is ;  dent-em — tooth ;   atiris — ear ;    dom-us — ta^ne,   are 
sufficiently  close  in  form  to  give  rise  to  reflection. 
If  we  systematically  compare  the  commonest  and 
most  familar  words  in   Latin  and  in  English,  such 
as  the  names  for  family  relationships,  the  numerals 
up  to  ten,  the  verb  'to  be,'  the  personal  pronouns, 
we  shall  find  the  same  resemblance,  and  if,  instead  of 
comparing  the  modern  English  words  with  the  Latin, 
we  compare  the  Old  English  forms,  the  connexion 
between  the  two  languages  is  very  much  closer  in 
most  cases.     Are  we  to  assume,  then,  that  Enghsh 
is  derived  from  Latin,  that  it  is  simply  a  form  of  Latin 
which  has  developed  on  special  lines  ?    Certainly  not. 
This  is  just  the  conclusion  which  we  must  not  draw. 
The   fact    is    that    Latin    and    English   are   cognate 
languages — that  is,  languages  which  are  both  sprung 
from    the   same   original    ancestor.      This   common 
ancestor  is  known  as  Primitive  Aryan.     It  has  long 
ceased  to  exist  independently,  and  only  survives  in 
the  various  forms  of  its  numerous  offspring.      But 


I90  THE  POSITION  OF  ENGLISH 

English,  even  in  its  oldest  form,  is  not  the  direct 
child  of  Primitive  Aryan. 

It  must  have  struck  every  student  of  Modern 
German  how  very  closely  this  language  resembles 
English — the  resemblance  is  far  nearer  than  that 
w^hich  English  bears  to  Latin.  Dutch  is  even  more 
like  English  than  German  is ;  for  instance,  German 
wasseVy  Dutch  water,  English  water ;  German  fiinfy 
Dutch  vijv,  English  five ;  German  gut,  Dutch  goed, 
English  good;  German  hesser,  Dutch  heter,  English 
better  ;  German  weih,  Dutch  vijf,  English  wife,  and  so 
on.  Here,  again,  we  must  not  suppose  that  English  is 
derived  from  German,  or  even  from  Dutch,  but  we 
assume  that  all  three  are  developed,  on  more  or  less 
different  lines,  from  the  same  ancestor,  which  we  call 
Primitive  Germanic,  and  which  was  a  daughter  of 
Primitive  Aryan.  In  the  same  way  Latin  is  merely 
one  of  several  closely  related  dialects  formerly  spoken 
in  Italy,  and  all  of  which  we  believe  to  have  been 
developed  out  of  a  common  ancestor,  which  we  call 
Primitive  Italic.  Thus,  the  immediate  starting-point 
for  German,  Dutch,  and  English,  on  the  one  hand,  is 
Primitive  Germanic;  while  on  the  other.  Primitive 
Italic  gave  rise  to  Latin,  and  the  other  ancient  dialects 
of  Italy.  These  two  dialects,  then,  Germanic  and 
Italic,  were  sisters,  both  sprung  from  the  common 
parent,  Primitive  Aryan. 

Primitive  Aryan  gave  rise  to  several  other  dialects, 
each  of  which  became  in  turn  the  mother  of  a  group 
of  languages  ;  that  is,  each  of  the  dialects  into  which 
Primitive  Aryan  split  up,  also  developed  varieties  in 
its  turn,  which  in  time  became  so  distinct  that 
their   descendants  were    regarded    as   separate   Ian- 


SPEECH  FAMILIES  191 

guages.  The  chief  of  these  groups  or  Families  of 
languages,  representatives  of  which  still  survive,  are : 
The  Indian  languages,  (of  which  Sanscrit  is  the  chief 
ancient  form,  and  which  has  numerous  modern 
representatives.  The  language  of  the  Gipseys  is  an 
Indian  dialect,  much  modified  by  the  languages  of 
the  different  countries  through  which  the  Gipseys 
have  passed) ;  the  Hellenic  or  Greek  dialects,  Celtic 
(represented  by  Irish,  Welsh  [and  Breton],  Scotch 
Gaelic,  and  Manx),  Slavonic  (represented  by  Russian, 
Polish,  Servian,  etc.),  and  Germanic  and  ItaHc,  as 
already  mentioned. 

We  can  now  see,  approximately,  the  relationship 
of  English  on  the  one  hand  to  its  near  cousins 
Dutch  and  German,  and  on  the  other  to  its  remoter 
cousins,  many  times  removed,  such  as  Latin,  Greek, 
Sanscrit,  Russian,  and  Irish.  The  minute  study  of 
these  relationships  is  known  as  Comparative  Philology, 
which  is  a  very  difficult  and  complicated  subject. 
It  is  not  uncommon  to  find  in  quite  elementary 
books  an  attempt  to  introduce  the  beginner  to 
some  of  the  details  of  this  study,  especially  to  what 
purports  to  be  an  account  of  the  relationships  of 
English  with  Latin,  Greek,  and  Sanscrit.  This  is 
introduced  under  the  title  of  what  is  known  as 
Grimm's  Law.  This  '  Law '  states  that  a  certain 
number  of  consonantal  sounds  which  existed  in 
Primitive  Aryan  became  such  and  such  other 
different  sounds  in  Primitive  Germanic.  Words 
from  Sanscrit,  Greek,  and  Latin,  are  introduced  to 
illustrate  the  original  Aryan  sounds,  and  are  com- 
pared with  words  from  English  and  Gothic,  to 
illustrate  the   Primitive  Germanic  sounds.      Unfor- 


[92  THE  POSITION  OF  ENGLISH 

tunately,  each  of  the  ancient  languages  just  mentioned 
has  its  own  pecuHar  laws  of  sound  change,  whereby 
the  original  sounds  are  often  changed  quite  as  much 
as  they  are  in  Germanic,  so  that  almost  every 
example  requires  a  special  explanation  to  show  how 
it  is  that  a  given  Aryan  sound  has  been  altered  into 
this  or  that  quite  different  sound  in  Latin  or  Greek. 
Then,  the  English  examples  by  no  means  always 
illustrate  the  Primitive  Germanic  forms  as  they 
ought,  for  here,  too,  numerous  special  changes  have 
taken  place,  which  require  explanation.  Since  we 
hold  that  this  sort  of  explanation  should  be  left  to 
a  later  stage  of  study,  and  since  without  it  the 
illustrations  from  the  various  languages  are  apt  to 
mislead,  we  shall  not  attempt  here  to  state  either 
Grimm's  Law  or  the  equally  important  Laws  of 
Grassmann  and  Verner. 

It  may  be  possible  and  profitable,  however,  to 
give  some  indication  of  what  the  problems  of  Com- 
parative Philology  are,  to  give  some  idea  of  what  is 
meant  by  comparing  together  languages  so  widely 
separated  as  English,  Latin,  Greek,  etc,  and  also  to 
point  out  the  general  and  special  connexion  between 
such  investigations  and  the  questions  with  which 
we  have  tried  to  deal  in  this  short  study  of  the 
English  Language. 

The  first  point  to  bear  in  mind  is  that  the  various 
families  of  languages  which  we  have  enumerated, 
sprung  as  they  are  from  a  common  parent,  have  yet 
probably  been  separate  for  several  thousand  3'ears, 
during  which  time  they  have  developed  on  in- 
dependent and  often  very  different  lines.  In  some 
cases   their  original   identity  is  fairly  obvious,  from 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  IDENTITY  193 

the  fact  that  all,  or  several,  of  the  speech  families 
have  preserved  fairly  closely  the  original  features  of 
the  parent  language.     Thus,  Latin  octo,  Greek  o/cro), 
Old  Irish  ocht,  Gothic  ahtau,  '  eight,'  have  a  suffi- 
ciently close  resemblance  for  their  identity  to  appear 
probable  at  the  first  glance.     On  the  other  hand,  no 
one    could    possibly    suspect    the    equally    certain 
identity  of  Greek  l3acv(o,  Latin  venio,  Gothic  qiinan, 
O.E.    cuman,    'come,'    without    knowing    something 
concerning  the  characteristic  peculiarities  of  develop- 
ment of  Greek,  Latin,  and  Germanic.     Now,  accord- 
ing to  the  strict  methods  of  modern  Philology,  we 
are  not  justified  in  asserting  the  original  identity  of 
a  group  of  words  from  different  languages,  unless  we 
are  able  to  account  for  every  sound  in  each — that  is, 
to  show  how,  and  by  what  process  of  development,  for 
instance,  a  certain  sound  in  Primitive  Aryan  became 
/3  in  Greek,  v  in  Latin,  q  {  =  kw)  in  Gothic,  and  so  on. 
In   the   above    group   of  words   we   should   further 
have  to  explain  the  relationship  of  Greek  -aiv-,  Latin 
-en-,  Gothic  -im-y  for  the  vowels  are  just  as  important, 
and  just   as   regular  in   their  development,   as   the 
consonants.      To   explain    these   things   we   should 
have  to  show  by  several  examples,  that  under  certain 
conditions,    the    same    sounds    always    develop    in 
Hellenic,  Italic,  and  Germanic,  in  the  same  way  as 
they  are  asserted  to  have  done  in  the  above  words. 
This  involves  a  wide  survey,  and  a  knowledge  of  the 
peculiar  habits  of  development  of  each  of  the  families 
mentioned.     Again,  we  have  to  consider,  not  merely 
the  characteristics  of  each  of  the  speech  families  as 
a  whole,   but   of  each   of   the   various   dialects   or 
languages  into  which  these  have  been  differentiated. 

13 


194  THE  POSITION  OF  ENGLISH 

Thus,  before  comparing  a  modern  English  word,  for 
example,  with  a  Greek  word,  we  have  to  first  trace  the 
word  back  to  its  oldest  English  form — and  we  have 
seen  above  (pp.  132-138)  that  a  good  many  changes 
have  occurred  in  English  since  the  O.E.  period — and 
thence  to  the  Primitive  Germanic  type.  Now,  the 
oldest  English  forms,  although  they  bear  often  a 
close  resemblance  to  the  oldest  forms  of  the  other 
Germanic  languages,  are  yet  often  sufficiently  distinct 
and  different  for  it  to  be  evident  that  each  of  these 
languages  has  changed  considerably  since  the  period 
of  original  unity  in  Primitive  Germanic.  For 
instance,  the  word  tooth  in  O.E.  is  t6\^,  in  Gothic 
fundus f  in  Old  High  German  zandy  which  shows 
that  whatever  the  Primitive  Germanic  form  may 
have  been,  it  has  altered  on  different  lines  in  English, 
Gothic,  and  High  German  (that  is,  what  we  generally 
call  *  German ').  But  when  we  have  reached  the 
Primitive  Germanic  form  of  a  word,  before  we  can 
profitably  compare  it  with  Latin,  we  have  often  to 
go  through  a  similar  process  of  discovering  what 
was  the  Primitive  Italic  form  from  which  the  Latin 
form  in  question  is  derived.  Latin  sometimes 
preserves  this  approximately,  but  equally  often  the 
Latin  form  is  proved  to  have  undergone  as  many 
changes  as  the  O.E.  form.  Thus,  the  forms  which 
Philologists  compare  together  are  not  the  derived 
forms  of  individual  languages  such  as  Greek  and 
Latin,  but  the  ancestral  forms  of  such  types  as 
Primitive  Italic  and  Primitive  Hellenic,  and  Germanic. 
Even  when  an  English  and  a  Latin  word  are  cited 
side  by  side  for  comparison,  it  is  only  as  types  of 
the   families   to   which   they   belong   that   they  are 


DIFFICULTY  OF  ACCURATE  STATEMENT     195 

considered,  and  although  it  may  not  be  stated,  a 
Philologist  is  bound  to  allow  for  the  individual 
characteristics  of  the  particular  languages,  and 
mentally  to  carry  out  the  process  of  reconstruction 
already  referred  to. 

The  habit  of  merely  quoting  Sanscrit,  Greek,  and 
Latin  forms,  to  represent  Primitive  Aryan  forms,  is 
apt  to  mislead  beginners  into  the  belief  that  the 
sounds  of  the  Parent  Language  are  necessarily  faith- 
fully preserved  in  these  languages.  This  is  far  from 
being  always  the  case.  It  sometimes  happens  that 
these  languages  do  preserve  a  primitive  type  almost 
unchanged,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  many  sounds, 
both  consonants  and  vowels,  are  subject  in  each  of 
the  above  three  ancient  tongues  to  a  considerable 
number  of  changes,  both  isolative  and  combinative. 
Such  a  statement  as  '  Greek  /i  equals  Germanic  p  ' 
is  most  misleading.  /5  in  Greek  has  several  origins : 
sometimes  it  represents  a  Primitive  Aryan  6,  in 
which  case  it  corresponds  to  Germanic  p ;  but,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  may  be  a  special  Greek  (or 
Hellenic)  development  from  an  earlier  -gw-,  in  which 
case  it  corresponds  to  3.  kw  or  k  in  Germanic,  as 
in  jSatvco  compared  with  qiman  (  =  kwiman).  Enough 
has  been  said  to  show  that  smatterings  of  com- 
parative Philology  are  not  only  useless,  but  that  they 
may  be  positively  harmful. 

But  without  making  a  study  of  the  innumerable 
details  which  go  to  make  up  the  modern  science  of 
Comparative  Philology,  the  beginner  may  with 
advantage  realize,  to  some  extent,  what  is  their 
nature,  and  what  are  the  difficulties  involved  in 
showing   the   precise   relationships   of    a    group   of 

13—2 


196  THE  POSITION  OF  ENGLISH 

cognate  words.  The  best  possible  preparation  for 
the  advanced  study  of  language  is  the  systematic 
study  of  the  Native  Language;  the  accurate  observa- 
tion of  its  actually  existing  forms,  as  spoken  in 
different  parts  of  the  country,  among  different 
classes  and  sections  of  the  community,  among  the 
various  generations  at  present  living.  From  the 
survey  of  the  present,  with  its  exuberant  and  various 
life,  its  multifarious  tendencies,  here  in  this  direction, 
there  in  that,  the  student  passes  to  a  consideration 
of  the  earher  phases  of  the  growth  of  English  speech  ; 
he  observes  in  each  period  the  rise  and  passing  away 
of  tendencies  to  change,  which  leave  their  traces 
upon  the  language  of  the  future ;  for  each  successive 
generation  acquires  a  slightly  different  form  from 
that  with  which  their  elders  began,  and,  in  their 
turn,  transmit  to  those  who  follow  them  a  language 
which  is  no  longer  precisely  that  with  which  they 
themselves  started. 

The  student  of  English  who  looks  back  through 
the  centuries  at  the  development  of  the  language 
has  to  interpret  the  written  symbols  of  each  age, 
and  translate  them  into  the  sounds  of  living  speech. 

But  even  by  this  imperfect  medium  he  discerns  a 
consistent  and  orderly  working  of  tendency  within 
each  dialect,  so  far  as  he  is  able  to  trace  its  history. 
In  other  words,  he  soon  finds  that  regular  development 
is  the  order  of  the  day,  and  learns  to  distrust  the 
doctrine  of  *  exceptions.'  He  perceives  that  in  the 
same  dialect  of  English,  the  same  sound  has 
always  developed  in  the  same  way  under  the  same 
conditions. 

We  have,  in  the   earlier   chapters  of  this   book, 


NECESSITY  OF  WIDE  SURVEY  197 

indicated  briefly — (i)  Changes  or  tendencies  to  change 
which  can  be  observed  in  operation  at  the  present 
day ;  (2)  changes  which  took  place  in  the  Early 
Modern  period ;  (3)  changes  which  occurred  in 
Middle  English ;  (4)  changes  which  came  about  in 
the  Old  English  period.  All  the  past  changes  have 
left  traces  upon  the  present-day  language,  and  a 
knowledge  of  all  those  which  have  affected  our 
language  from  the  beginning  of  the  English  period 
throws  a  great  deal  of  light  upon  the  speech  of  to- 
day. But  there  are  many  things  in  English  which 
we  cannot  understand  from  the  study  of  this 
language  alone,  no  matter  how  far  we  may  go  back 
in  its  history.  There  are  facts  the  explanation  and 
causes  of  which  lie  further  back  still,  some  in  the 
Primitive  Germanic  period,  some  even  more  remote, 
in  the  dim  past  of  Primitive  Aryan. 

For  instance,  we  have  noted  the  far-reaching 
sound  change  known  as  ^'-mutation,  which  we  said 
affected  certain  vowels  in  Old  English.  But  in 
most  cases,  although  the  change  is  plainly  observable 
in  Old  English  itself,  the  -i-  which  produced  it  has 
disappeared  already  in  the  oldest  form  of  English, 
and  we  have  to  penetrate  into  the  common  Germanic 
period  to  discover  it. 

Again,  while  English,  together  with  all  the  other 
Germanic  languages,  shows  the  interchange  of  vowels 
which  we  observe  in  the  strong  verbs  (pp.  84,  85),  and 
also  in  other  cognate  words  (p.  82,  2,  /3),  these  changes 
are  older  even  than  Primitive  Germanic.  Corre- 
sponding changes  are  found  in  all  the  families  of 
Aryan  speech,  and  we  must  therefore  conclude  that 
they  were  produced  in  Primitive  Aryan,  before  this 


198  THE  POSITION  OF  ENGLISH 

had  been  split  up  into  Hellenic,  Italic,  Germanic, 
etc. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  advanced  study  of 
English  will  soon  lead  us  beyond  the  history  of  this 
language  alone,  into  the  wider  fields  of  Germanic 
and  Comparative  Aryan  Philology. 

The  special  study  of  English  is  simply  the  follow- 
ing out,  in  detail,  of  the  great  flood  of  Aryan  speech 
into  one  of  its  innumerable  sub-branches. 

The  multiplication  of  dialects  from  what  was 
once,  in  the  remote  past,  a  single  uniform  language 
will  not  surprise  the  student  who  has  learnt  that 
even  in  his  own  speech  at  the  present  day  slightly 
different  tendencies  can  be  observed  among  different 
classes,  and  in  different  parts  of  the  country. 
Imagine  communities  who,  at  first,  differ  from  each 
other  in  speech  as  little  as  do  the  inhabitants  of 
Yorkshire  from  those  of  Lancashire,  or  as  little  as 
the  different  social  divisions  of  a  single  large  city 
picture  these  communities,  separated  completely  from 
each  other,  and  dispersed  in  widely  distant  areas, 
among  peoples  who  speak  completely  different  lan- 
guages, and  whose  way  of  life  is  also  different,  and 
what  will  be  the  result  ? 

The  speech  of  each  group  thus  dispersed  will 
continue  to  change  ;  the  tendencies  are  different  at 
the  start  in  each  group,  and  therefore  the  direction 
of  change  will  be  different  in  each  case.  But  in 
addition  to  the  initial  differences,  the  variousness  of 
the  subsequent  development  will  be  accentuated 
by  the  external  surroundings  among  which  the 
speakers  live — differences  of  climate,  of  way  of  life, 
of  social  organization,  different  neighbours.     Imagine 


CONCLUSION  199 

all  these  circumstances  existing  in  active  operation 
for  thousands  of  years,  and  the  result  is  the  great 
families  of  speech  into  which  Primitive  Aryan 
divided.  A  similar  process  acting  again  on  each  of 
these  families,  sphts  them  up  in  their  turn  into 
dialects,  and  so  the  process  goes  on  throughout  the 
ages.  The  importance  of  the  careful  observation  of 
the  facts  of  Spoken  English,  as  it  exists  to-day  in  its 
various  forms,  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  student  thus 
becomes  acquainted  with  those  natural  tendencies 
to  variation  which  took  place  in  the  past  as  they  exist 
in  the  present,  and  without  a  knowledge  of  which  we 
cannot  understand  the  simplest  facts  of  the  history  of 
our  own  or  of  any  other  language. 


S. 


THE    END 


BILLING   AND   SONS,    LTD.,    TRINTERS,    GUILDFORD 


,\' 


«,' 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


c.  \ '..'  a  D 


STACK  DHAD 


v^n^ 


r.  tiv^ 


8EPi2'S8-'^P» 


:*!uV65 


N0V2  219/S  1 


f^^'S  d  L5 


^Joniw^iW 


SEG.C1R.     W0V12'75 


ttC201982 


LIBRARY  USE 


8EC.  CIR.  JAN  <i5  '83 


MAR  25  1967 


ceW&p 


Vifc 


AT 


S*iV 


'^2 


^'67 


OP-H 


d£? 


^0V16i867  7'i': 


REC'D  LP 


M/1RI3'68-6<^M 


UBRARY  USf 


SEP  i  2  I960 


LD2]A-40m-ll,'6c 
(E16028l0)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBt,ARIES 


CDM3SD737h 


/-/^W 


j^ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


